Article in PDF
How to Cite
Citation Manager
Readers' Comments (0)
Audio Visual Article Statistics
Link
to PUBMED
Print this Article
Send to a Friend
Advertisers
Access Statistics Resources
Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journals–No manuscripts–No authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."
Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
E-mail: drrajendrak1@rediffmail.com
On May 11,2011
Dr. Shankar P.R.
"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."
Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
E-mail: ravi.dr.shankar@gmail.com
On April 2011 Anuradha
Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.
Dr. Anuradha
E-mail: anuradha2nittur@gmail.com
On Jan 2020
Research Protocol
Full Version
Efficacy of Novel PRP Loop versus Opus Loop for Anterior En-Masse Retraction in Angle’s Class I Dewey’s Type 2 Malocclusion: A Randomised Clinical Trial Protocol
Correspondence Address :
Dr. Krushnali N Kolhatkar,
Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Sharad Pawar Dental College and Hospital, Datta Meghe Institute of Higher Education and Research, Sawangi, Wardha-442001, Maharashtra, India.
E-mail: drkrushnalimds@gmail.com
Introduction: Optimal space closure is a pivotal aspect of orthodontic treatment, particularly challenging in patients with bimaxillary protrusions and Angle’s class II division 1 malocclusion. Two primary methods, friction, and frictionless mechanisms, are employed for anterior teeth retraction. However, concerns over prolonged treatment duration and increased anchorage demands have prompted exploration into non-frictional approaches. Biomechanical properties significantly influence the efficacy of retraction loops, with ideal loops exhibiting high Moment-to-Force (M/F) ratios and low Force-to-Deflection (F/D) ratios. The “PRP loop” was developed inspired by existing designs, showing promising biomechanical characteristics in a finite element study. However, its clinical efficacy remains unexplored.
Need of the study: More research is required to assess the clinical efficacy of the recently created PRP loop in promoting retraction. This trial attempts to evaluate the effectiveness of the PRP loop compared to current techniques, focusing on attaining effective anterior en-masse retraction. Through an analysis of the benefits and limitations of both methods, the research aims to shed light on which loop provides the best space closure.
Aim: This study aims to evaluate and compare the PRP loop with the Opus loop for anterior en-masse retraction in Angle’s class I Dewey’s Type 2 malocclusion.
Materials and Methods: A prospective single-blinded randomised clinical trial will be conducted in the Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics at Sharad Pawar Dental College and Hospital, Sawangi, Wardha, Maharastra from September 2024 to April 2026. Thirty patients between the age of 15-30 years having Angle’s Class I Dewey’s type 2 malocclusion requiring maxillary premolar extraction will be included and divided into two groups (PRP and Opus loop groups) with the exclusion of Angle’s Class II and III cases. Treatment procedures include initial alignment, maxillary premolar extractions, and retraction using respective loops. Evaluation criteria encompass retraction rate, efficacy, and anchorage loss measured through study models and radiographic assessments. Statistical analysis will employ Student’s paired and unpaired t-test and Chi-square test with GraphPad Prism 7.0 and SPSS 27.0 software and a significance level of p<0.05.
Anchorage loss, Frictionless mechanism, Retraction loops
Achieving optimal space closure remains a complex challenge in orthodontic treatment, particularly for Subjects with prominent bimaxillary protrusions and Angle’s class II division 1 malocclusion. This challenge involves retracting anterior teeth, with two primary approaches: friction and frictionless mechanism (1). Effectively closing the extraction spaces is critical for the success of orthodontic outcomes. Anterior en-masse retraction can be performed using various methods. One of the most commonly used sliding mechanics has concerns regarding prolongation of treatment time and increased anchorage demands and hence has fuelled the investigation of alternative, non-frictional approaches. Irrespective of the anchorage technique, the en masse retraction tends to cause decreased mesial shifts of the anchors (2).
A diversiform lineup of loop designs exists, including opus, K SIR, mushroom, vertical, T, L, teardrop, omega, and others. The efficacy of any retraction loop in facilitating space closure is particularly dependent on its biomechanical characteristics (3). Among these, superlative retraction loops are characterised by a high ratio of M/F approaching 10:1 in addition to a low rate of F/D (4). These parameters straightaway influence the loop’s efficaciousness in generating controlled tooth movement. Therefore, meticulous computation of both the ratio of M/F and F/D rate before deploying any retraction loop for extraction space closure is pivotal for ensuring foreseeable and effective treatment results.
Inspired by the L loop and Opus loop designs, Dr. Pallavi Daigavane of the Sharad Pawar Dental College developed the “PRP loop” (4),(5). A consequential finite element study by Kumari S et al., compared the PRP loop’s biomechanical characteristics to those of the Opus and L loops. Their findings revealed that the PRP loop boasts a considerably higher M/F ratio, potentially making it an efficient tool for tooth retraction (4). Furthermore, Siatkowski’s (1997) Opus loop was created with the innate capacity to provide a desired M/F of 8.0-9.1 mm, avoiding residual moments through bends or twists (also called gable bends) at any point before insertion into the archwire and loop. Hence, these combined benefits are advantageous options for various orthodontic applications (6).
To best of our knowledge, no study has been conducted to assess the clinical efficacy of the new PRP loop. This clinical trial will help determine PRP and Opus loop’s advantages and disadvantages in retraction. Thus, the present study aims to evaluate and compare the efficacy of the novel PRP loop with the Opus loop for anterior en-masse retraction in Angle’s Class I Dewey’s type 2 malocclusion.
Primary objective: To evaluate and compare the rate of anterior en-masse retraction achieved with PRP and Opus loop.
Secondary objective: To assess and compare the anchorage loss associated with PRP and opus loop during anterior en-masse retraction.
Null hypothesis: PRP and opus loop will be equally effective in anterior en-masse retraction.
Alternate hypothesis: PRP loop is better than opus loop in anterior en-masse retraction.
Review of Literature
The biomechanics of tooth movement for closing extraction spaces are influenced by factors such as the moment/force ratio, the F/D rate, the amount of force generated, and the specific configuration of the loop. These factors combined create a complex biomechanical system that influences the translatory movement of the teeth. Rao PR et al., examined the Snail loop’s biomechanical characteristics with those of the Opus and Teardrop loops in a FEM research and found opus loop exhibited a higher ratio of M/F and the lowest F/D rate in comparison to both snail and teardrop loops (7).
Guroo DK et al., compared open with closed loops for incisor retraction, focusing on speed, tooth movement, and anchorage, and found Open loop has faster incisor retraction (0.023 mm/day vs. 0.0194 mm/day), more inter-canine width reduction and molar rotation and increased nasolabial angle (flatter profile) (8). While closed loop has more controlled incisor retraction with no torque loss and slower retraction and concluded that open loops offered faster retraction but with potential inter-canine narrowing, molar rotation, and profile flattening, while closed loops provided slower but more controlled retraction, minimising unwanted tooth movement.
Alhadlaq A et al., Compared anchorage preservation with transpalatal arches in continuous vs. segmented arch techniques for canine retraction and found significant molar movement forward (4.5 mm) in continuous technique and minimal molar movement (0.2 mm) using a segmented loop (9). They concluded that T-loops with posterior anchorage bend in segmented arches significantly improve anchorage compared to continuous arches during canine retraction.
Rizk M et al., systematically reviewed and analysed the effectiveness of en masse versus two-step retraction by comparing the anchorage preservation and retraction of Upper Incisors (U1) and concluded that both the methods are in space closing phase have been proved effective (2). Also, qualitatively stated that less time is required in the first method when compared to the latter.
A prospective single-blinded randomised clinical trial will be conducted from September 2024 to April 2026, at the outpatient Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics at Sharad Pawar Dental College and Hospital, Sawangi, Wardha. All processes related to Subjects will adhere to the 1964 Helsinki Declaration, its later amendments, or comparable ethical norms, in addition to the Institutional Ethics Committee’s guidelines. The proposed research (Ref. No. DMIHER(DU)/IEC/2024/250) has been approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee at its meeting on January 30th, 2024. The registered CTRI number is CTRI/2024/07/070006.
Inclusion criteria:
• Subjects between the ages of 15 to 30 years.
• Subjects with Angle’s Class I Dewey’s type 2 malocclusion.
• Subjects having average growth pattern requiring maxillary premolar extractions.
• Moderate to critical anchorage cases.
• Those with healthy periodontal status, without periodontal pocket depths more than 2 to 3 mm, and the ones who require fixed orthodontic treatment.
Exclusion criteria:
• Angle’s Class II and III malocclusion.
• Subjects having inborn and developmental syndromes.
• Systemic disorders like clotting diseases or conditions such as pregnancy.
The treatment modality will be explained to the subjects and those who agree to participate; informed consent will be obtained with a signature.
Sample size calculation: The incisor exposure in relation to the upper lip from Guroo DK et al., study will be taken into consideration while determining the sample size. Where Mean incisor exposure wrt. upper lip at T0=5.83 (8).
Mean incisor exposure wrt. upper lip at T4=4.45.
For detecting mean difference of 1.38 i.e., ?=5.83-4.45=1.38.
σ1=Standard deviation of incisor exposure wrt upper lip at T0=1.60.
σ2=Standard deviation of incisor exposure wrt upper lip at T4=1.05.
K=1. Two-sided Z value (eg. Z=1.96 for 95% confidence interval)= power.
N= (1.60*1.60+1.05*1.05) (1.96+0.84)2/1.38*1.38
15.07=15 Subjects needed in each group. Total 30 subjects. Power of the test: 80%. Level of Significance: 5% (95% confidence interval).
Procedure
The materials that will be required in this research are lateral cephalograms, study model investigations, and 0.019×0.025-inch Titanium Molybdenum Alloy wires. A total of 30 subjects will be divided into two groups, with 15 in every group: Group-A: Individuals will receive PRP Loop, and Group-B: Individuals will receive opus loop. PRP and Opus loop randomisation will be done in a 1:1 ratio, and concealment of allocations will be assured by employing a web front-end “sealed envelope” by a centralised online randomisation system. Detailed case histories, radiographs, and study models will be methodically assembled. In all the cases, stainless steel brackets will be placed of 0.022×0.028 slot dimension with MBT prescription (McLaughlin, Bennett, Trevisi). The orthodontic treatment will begin with initial leveling and aligning of teeth by sequentially using 0.016 inch round NiTi, 0.016×0.022 inch rectangular NiTi, 0.017×0.025 inch rectangular NiTi, 0.017×0.025 inch rectangular SS, 0.019×0.025 inch rectangular NiTi, 0.019×0.025 inch rectangular SS, 0.019×0.025 inch rectangular TMA wires. Anchorage preparation will be done using a transpalatal arch. After maxillary premolar extractions, pre-intervention lateral cephalograms and study model impressions will be recorded (T0). Anterior en-masse retraction will be performed using a PRP loop and Opus loop fabricated from 0.019×0.025 inch titanium molybdenum alloy wire. Gable bends of 15° α and 25° β will be incorporated into the PRP loop (4). No gable bends are required in the Opus loop (6). A 2 mm activation will be done in both the loops by cinch back, using orthodontic cinch back plier number 10/129. Study model impression will be collected after two months (T2) and post-extraction space closure, while lateral cephalogram will be taken after extraction space closure.
Primary outcomes: The retraction rate will be measured by linear measurement on the study model of extraction space closure using vernier caliper. Anterior en-masse retraction efficacy will be measured by angular measurement on lateral cephalogram from the U1 to SN and linear measurement on lateral cephalogram of incisal exposure concerning upper lip (8).
Secondary outcomes: Anchorage loss will be measured by molar rotation in the transverse plane on the study model (10), Nasal Floor (NF) to upper 1st molar (U6) in the vertical plane, and Pterygoid Vertical (PTV) to the distal surface of upper 1st molar (U6) in the sagittal plane.
Statistical Analysis
The software analysis will be conducted with GraphPad Prism 7.0 and SPSS version 27.0. Statistics will be performed using students’ paired and unpaired t-tests and the Chi-square test with a level of significance of p <0.05.
DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2024/72876.20227
Date of Submission: May 17, 2024
Date of Peer Review: Jun 18, 2024
Date of Acceptance: Aug 20, 2024
Date of Publishing: Oct 01, 2024
AUTHOR DECLARATION:
• Financial or Other Competing Interests: None
• Was Ethics Committee Approval obtained for this study? Yes
• Was informed consent obtained from the subjects involved in the study? No
• For any images presented appropriate consent has been obtained from the subjects. No
PLAGIARISM CHECKING METHODS:
• Plagiarism X-checker: May 22, 2024
• Manual Googling: Jun 20, 2024
• iThenticate Software: Aug 19, 2024 (6%)
ETYMOLOGY: Author Origin
EMENDATIONS: 6
- Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
- Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
- Academic Search Complete Database
- Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
- Embase
- EBSCOhost
- Google Scholar
- HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
- Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
- Journal seek Database
- Popline (reproductive health literature)
- www.omnimedicalsearch.com