Text Similarity | |
Noy AF, Fuks A. Assessment of pulps vitality for children and adolescents. Refuat Hapeh Vehashinayim 2010 27;13-6.73 | Gopikrishna V, Pradeep G, Venkateshbabu N. Assessment of pulp vitality: a review. Int J Paediartr Dent 2009;19:3-15. |
Accurate assessment of pulp status is one of the greatest diagnostic challenges in clinical practice. This may be further complicated in children and adolescent where the practitioner is faced with different situations such as: primary teeth, developing permanent dentition, traumatized teeth, patients undergoing orthodontic treatment. In addition, the dentist is frequently faced with young children who have limited ability to recall a pain history or cooperate with the test itself. A variety of pulp testing approaches exist, and there may be a confusion as to their validity in different clinical situations. Sensitivity tests include thermal testing and Electric Pulp Test. Their limitation is the possibility to get false positive or false negative results. Their primary limitation lies in the fact that they test the sensory response of the tooth, which can be temporarily lost after dental trauma. A more accurate assessment of pulp vitality would be made by determining the presence of a functioning blood supply with the use of Laser Doppler Flowmetry or Pulse Oximetry. This paper provides the clinician with a comprehensive review of current pulp testing methods and allow greater insight into the interpretation of pulp testing results, especially in young patients. | One of the greatest diagnostic challenges in clinical practice is the accurate assessment of pulp status. This may be further complicated in paediatric dentistry where the practitioner is faced with a developing dentition, traumatized teeth, or young children who have a limited ability to recall a pain history for the tooth in question. A variety of pulp testing approaches exist, and there may be confusion as to their validity or appropriateness in different clinical situations. Aim.The aim of this paper is to provide the clinician with a comprehensive review of current pulp testing methods. A key objective is to highlight the difference between sensitivity testing and vitality testing. A biological basis for pulp testing is also provided to allow greater insight into the inter- pretation of pulp testing results. The rationale for, and methods of, assessing pulpal blood flow are described. |
Friday 20 May 2011
Assessment of pulps vitality for children and adolescents.
Friday 13 May 2011
Plagiarism - what to be done.
"The only way that practices such as plagiarism and other forms of scientifi c misconduct will be stamped out once and for all is if exposure is certain and condign punishment assured." [Gillman MA. Checking for plagiarism, duplicate publication, and text recycling. Lancet 2011;377:1403.]
Wednesday 11 May 2011
Pulp vitality - The tale of two conclusions
The unreliability of testing tooth pulp nerve response is well documented. When nervous sensations are inhibited or abolished in the tooth, for example following trauma, tooth transplantation procedures or during a general anaesthetic, conventional tests are of little value. However, a method based on the vascular response of the pilip need not be restricted under such conditions. Recording the pulpal blood flow would be an objective assessment of the status of the pulpal blood circulation, a true indicator of pulp vitality. Optical devices that exploit the various absorbance properties of different substances within the dental pulp are being studied to determine pulsation and blood volume. They offer the advantages of being objective, noninvasive and atraumatic testing modalities, which result in greater patient acceptance and co-operation. Currently, the significance and reliability of these methods are being studied. It is hoped that newer technology will enable a more thorough study of the pulpal vasculature and define its role in pulp vitality testing. | The unreliability of testing tooth pulp nerve response is well-documented. When nervous sensations are inhibited or abolished in the tooth, for example, following trauma, tooth transplantation procedures or during a general anaesthetic, conventional tests are of little value. However, a method based on the vascular response of the pulp need not be restricted under such conditions. Recording the pulpal blood flow would be an objective assessment of the status of the pulpal blood circulation, a true indicator of pulp vitality. Optical devices that exploit the various absorbance properties of different substances within the dental pulp are being studied to determine pulsation and blood volume. They offer the advantages of being objective, noninvasive, and atraumatic testing modalities, which result in greater patient acceptance and cooperation. Currently, the significance and reliability of these methods are being studied. It is hoped that newer technology will enable a more thorough study of the pulpal vasculature and define its role in pulp vitality testing. |
Tuesday 10 May 2011
Plagiarism in scientific publication
Plagiarism in scientific publication*
Sigmar de Mello Rode
Braz Oral Res. 2011 Mar-Apr;25(2):101
The University of São Paulo (USP) and the University of Campinas (UNICAMP)
have appeared in the newspapers because of suspicion of fraud in
scientific research and publication. Among the main concerns of any scientific
journal is the possibility of authors tampering with or simply inventing data in
their published articles, of reproducing data or texts by other authors without
citing the reference, or even of repeating the published version of research or
texts already published in another journal.
Plagiarism is the appropriation of ideas of another author, without giving
due credit, and auto-plagiarism occurs when an author republishes the same material
or data – however disguised – of a scientific production. Plagiarism is a
ghost that haunts editors of journals (scientific or otherwise) because, with the
exponential increase in the production of texts, it is not easy to immediately
ascertain the occurrence of plagiarism. Fortunately, the same digital media that
facilitates plagiarism through copy/paste procedures allows comparing texts just
as easily, thus providing evidence of the misconduct.
A journal’s Instructions to Authors section should clearly cover misconduct
practices in order to guide authors in the publication process. Good reviewers,
conscientious and knowledgeable of the subject being reviewed, may be able
to minimize the problem, but not eliminate it completely. The pressure put on
authors to increase their production and consequent publication rates renders
plagiarism increasingly more frequent, mainly – albeit not exclusively – among
more inexperienced authors.
In 2010, the Singapore Statement on Research Integrity, put forth as part of
the 2nd World Conference on Research Integrity, held in that city from July 21
to 24, 2010, became a global reference for conducting research responsibly. It is
not, however, a regulatory document, neither does it represent the official policies
of the countries and organizations that funded or participated in the Conference.
The original statement (available at http://www.singaporestatement.org/
statement) states that the value and benefits of research are vitally dependent on
research integrity, and while there can be, and are, national and disciplinary differences
in the way research is organized and conducted, there are also common
principles and professional responsibilities that are fundamental to ensuring research
integrity wherever it is undertaken.
Also noteworthy is the work of the Committee on Publication Ethics – COPE
(http://www.publicationethics.org/), a forum for editors and publishers of peer-reviewed
journals to discuss all aspects of publication ethics. It also advises editors
on how to handle cases of research and publication misconduct. A series of detailed
flowcharts of how to manage issues of potential ethical breaches has been
produced and is available freely online.
Renowned universities and research institutions have faced the problem and,
together with professional boards and government agencies, are urged to create
workgroups, committees or associations to control and judge any situations arising.
Good sense and the principles guiding proper conduct in research and related
publication should always be borne in mind by researchers willing to obviate
misconduct. The same applies to the production of unworthy research with the
sole purpose of increasing the apparent scientific productivity of its authors.
Sigmar de Mello Rode
Braz Oral Res. 2011 Mar-Apr;25(2):101
The University of São Paulo (USP) and the University of Campinas (UNICAMP)
have appeared in the newspapers because of suspicion of fraud in
scientific research and publication. Among the main concerns of any scientific
journal is the possibility of authors tampering with or simply inventing data in
their published articles, of reproducing data or texts by other authors without
citing the reference, or even of repeating the published version of research or
texts already published in another journal.
Plagiarism is the appropriation of ideas of another author, without giving
due credit, and auto-plagiarism occurs when an author republishes the same material
or data – however disguised – of a scientific production. Plagiarism is a
ghost that haunts editors of journals (scientific or otherwise) because, with the
exponential increase in the production of texts, it is not easy to immediately
ascertain the occurrence of plagiarism. Fortunately, the same digital media that
facilitates plagiarism through copy/paste procedures allows comparing texts just
as easily, thus providing evidence of the misconduct.
A journal’s Instructions to Authors section should clearly cover misconduct
practices in order to guide authors in the publication process. Good reviewers,
conscientious and knowledgeable of the subject being reviewed, may be able
to minimize the problem, but not eliminate it completely. The pressure put on
authors to increase their production and consequent publication rates renders
plagiarism increasingly more frequent, mainly – albeit not exclusively – among
more inexperienced authors.
In 2010, the Singapore Statement on Research Integrity, put forth as part of
the 2nd World Conference on Research Integrity, held in that city from July 21
to 24, 2010, became a global reference for conducting research responsibly. It is
not, however, a regulatory document, neither does it represent the official policies
of the countries and organizations that funded or participated in the Conference.
The original statement (available at http://www.singaporestatement.org/
statement) states that the value and benefits of research are vitally dependent on
research integrity, and while there can be, and are, national and disciplinary differences
in the way research is organized and conducted, there are also common
principles and professional responsibilities that are fundamental to ensuring research
integrity wherever it is undertaken.
Also noteworthy is the work of the Committee on Publication Ethics – COPE
(http://www.publicationethics.org/), a forum for editors and publishers of peer-reviewed
journals to discuss all aspects of publication ethics. It also advises editors
on how to handle cases of research and publication misconduct. A series of detailed
flowcharts of how to manage issues of potential ethical breaches has been
produced and is available freely online.
Renowned universities and research institutions have faced the problem and,
together with professional boards and government agencies, are urged to create
workgroups, committees or associations to control and judge any situations arising.
Good sense and the principles guiding proper conduct in research and related
publication should always be borne in mind by researchers willing to obviate
misconduct. The same applies to the production of unworthy research with the
sole purpose of increasing the apparent scientific productivity of its authors.
Thursday 5 May 2011
Plagiarism text
Checking for plagiarism........duplicate publication.....and text recycling
I applaud The Lancet’s plan to use a service to determine whether a submitted paper has been plagiarised from another author or is a duplicate of a previously or simultaneously published paper by
the same author (Jan 22, p 281).1 Having said this, I do not agree with the editors on the issue of “selfplagiarism”. I have published several scientific books, more than 80 chapters, and over 430 original articles, and I firmly believe that we authors have three responsibilities to our readers: (1) to provide scientifically valid inform ation, (2) to provide the newest information possible, and (3) to provide prose that is not copied from another author’s work. On the other hand, if I publish an original paper in a journal and am then asked to provide a review article on the same subject for another journal or book, I should have the right to use my original words and sentences verbatim as long as the subject
matter remains valid and up-todate and as long as I reference any and all previous work from which
the sentences and paragraphs have been taken. In my opinion, neither the publisher nor the reader is entitled to a reworking of the prose. Thus, in many settings, “text recycling” is neither inappropriate nor evidence of misconduct.
I declare that I have no confl icts of interest.
1 Kleinert S, on behalf of the editors of all
Lancet journals. Checking for plagiarism,
duplicate publication, and text recycling.
Lancet 2011; 377: 281–82.
I applaud The Lancet’s plan to use a service to determine whether a submitted paper has been plagiarised from another author or is a duplicate of a previously or simultaneously published paper by
the same author (Jan 22, p 281).1 Having said this, I do not agree with the editors on the issue of “selfplagiarism”. I have published several scientific books, more than 80 chapters, and over 430 original articles, and I firmly believe that we authors have three responsibilities to our readers: (1) to provide scientifically valid inform ation, (2) to provide the newest information possible, and (3) to provide prose that is not copied from another author’s work. On the other hand, if I publish an original paper in a journal and am then asked to provide a review article on the same subject for another journal or book, I should have the right to use my original words and sentences verbatim as long as the subject
matter remains valid and up-todate and as long as I reference any and all previous work from which
the sentences and paragraphs have been taken. In my opinion, neither the publisher nor the reader is entitled to a reworking of the prose. Thus, in many settings, “text recycling” is neither inappropriate nor evidence of misconduct.
I declare that I have no confl icts of interest.
Neil R Miller
nrmiller@jhmi.edu
*Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins
Hospital, Baltimore, MD 21287, USA; and
Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta,
GA, USA1 Kleinert S, on behalf of the editors of all
Lancet journals. Checking for plagiarism,
duplicate publication, and text recycling.
Lancet 2011; 377: 281–82.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)