Submit a manuscript Sign up for article alerts Contact us

RSS

Latest comments

Sharing experience. (Jesika Mery, 14 August 2014)

Excellent research. I enjoyed the topic very much. Your research about dental health that you have expressed is very effective, I think. You will be pleased to know that we have recently merged and acquired two beautiful dental practices, now Occidental and I think we will be able to apply your experience what I acquired here. Thank for giving me a happy moment.

dentist Bay Ridge Bensonhurst Brooklyn read full comment

Comment on: Spolsky et al. BMC Oral Health, 12:39

revising the affiliation of Min Zhang and Yongjin Chen (Min Zhang, 07 August 2014)

The affiliation of Min Zhang and Yongjin Chen should be “State Key Laboratory of Military Stomatology, Department of General Dentistry and Emergency, School of Stomatology, Fourth Military Medical University, No.145 West Changle Road, Xi'an, 710032, China”. read full comment

Comment on: Liu et al. BMC Oral Health, 14:65

CAL of severe periodontitis (case definitions for periodontitis Page and Eke, 2007) (wisam kamil, 13 March 2014)

While I was browsing Roos Leroy et al. paper,  2010, BMC OH (Methodological issues in epidemiological studies of periodontitis) I noticed that authors displayed severe periodontitis according to case definitions for periodontitis (Page and Eke, 2007) in table 1 as  2 interproximal sites with CAL ≥ 4??? Which is supposed to be 6 as displayed in table 13 in the original paper J periodontology 2007;78:1387-1399, I am sure that is a typing error but it may create overestimation of severe periodontitis and overlap with moderate cases read full comment

Comment on: Leroy et al. BMC Oral Health, 10:8

Incorrect figure/graph placement (Karzan Amin, 29 November 2011)

According to the text Figure 1 is showing; the initial percentage distribution and subsequent mean 4-year DMF-S increment in Group 1(Initial DMF-S = 0.61), but the bar-graph represents the results for Group 4 (compare the 4-year mean caries increment for children initially with DMF-S of 0). Vice versa Figure 4 is showing the graph representing Group 1.
Figure 2 is showing a graph of Group 3 (not Group 2 as stated), and Figure 3 is showing a graph representing Group 2.

Furthermore if we look at the bar-graph for Group 3 (which is misplaced onto Figure 2), the DMF-S bar for children with an initial DMF-S of 7 or more is incorrectly depicted. It shows a bar corresponding to 3% when it should be 7% (which is higher than its neighbouring DMF-S 5-6 subgroup), as stated in the... read full comment

Comment on: Batchelor et al. BMC Oral Health, 6:3

Yes, but... (Anthony Staines, 04 November 2010)

Dear Dr Freeman,
I found your paper interesting and stimulating, and I am now using it with a class of students. I generally agree with your perspective, but I do have a but..

With my health policy hat on I have to constantly justify expenditure on health promotion. Without good supporting evidence nothing will be funded. It is very challenging to produce good evidence of the effectiveness of health promotion without some explicit comparison, however biased this may be.

A point we constantly emphasize with our clinical students is that practice guidelines are 'for the guidance of the wise, and the obedience of fools'. Might there be a useful analogy here, where health promotion interventions in a community build on the evidence, but use the community voice to... read full comment

Comment on: Freeman BMC Oral Health, 9:1

oral health status of adults in Southern Vietnam (loi lethi, 06 July 2010)

Since research about oral function of the Vietnamese population is scare, this study has a great contribution on database for future study in oral health of the country. In addition, it provides for policy maker useful information to make oral health care programmes and also to predict an efficient dental workforce in order to offer adequate oral health care to Vietnamese people.
read full comment

Comment on: Nguyen et al. BMC Oral Health, 10:2

A small error in references (Pentti Alanen, 13 August 2008)

This is a nice study. However, a small error has taken place when referring the Estonian study, ref 18. In that study, no MS levels were measured. We studied only the cavitation. Of course, there is every reason to believe that also the MS levels were reduced but there is no empirical data to show this. read full comment

Comment on: Ly et al. BMC Oral Health, 8:20

Species designation (Diplococcus pneumoniae) (Ernesto García, 24 June 2008)

I really do not understand how it is possible to accept and publish a paper in 2008 naming the pneumococcus as "Diplococcus pneumoniae", a very old designation of Streptococcus pneumoniae, which is in disuse from long time ago. read full comment

Comment on: Cazzolla et al. BMC Oral Health, 6:2

Clinical Criterion Validity (JAVIER MONTERO, 17 September 2007)

It is a good study to reach the transcultural validation of the OIDP. Is there any relevant clinical criteria scoring the OIDP? What about gender or age? read full comment

Comment on: Dorri et al. BMC Oral Health, 7:2

response (Paul Batchelor, 13 February 2006)

We would like to thank Professor Pentti Alanen for the question raised on our paper. The author implies that a number of features of the caries process have changed since the data used in our analyses were gathered. They have not. Except for a marked decline all other features are similar. The caries prevalence and incidence rates in our study are very similar to those found currently in the vast majority of the world’s industrial populations. Second, the preventative measures used today are the same as those used in our study, namely the use of fluoride and fissure sealants. As we have shown in previous papers, the distribution of caries within all populations shares common features: the mean and variance at all levels of caries are mathematically linked. This feature is independent... read full comment

Comment on: Batchelor et al. BMC Oral Health, 6:3

Some questions to the authors (Pentti Alanen, 07 February 2006)

I have read this article with surprise. In the answer to the reviewers the authors state: "We have highlighted that the major burden of future disease occurs in the groups at lowest risk..."I think you should write: "We have shown that the major burden of future disease DID 20-25 YEARS AGO OCCUR IN THE 7-11-YEAR-OLD AGE GROUPS SUSPECTED to be at lowest risk..." How do you know that your results can be generalised to current populations, caries increment figures, distribution and polarisation of decay, current preventive measures, and current identification of risk subjects? The age group 7 years is the most difficult one in these respects. read full comment

Comment on: Batchelor et al. BMC Oral Health, 6:3