Journal of Indian Society of Periodontology
Journal of Indian Society of Periodontology
Home | About JISP | Search | Accepted articles | Online Early | Current Issue | Archives | Instructions | SubmissionSubscribeLogin 
Users Online: 633  Home Print this page Email this page Small font size Default font size Increase font sizeWide layoutNarrow layoutFull screen layout


 
   Table of Contents    
LETTER TO EDITOR
Year : 2012  |  Volume : 16  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 301  

Authors' Reply


Department of Periodontics, Panineeya Mahavidhyalaya Institute of Dental Sciences and Research Centre, Kamalanagar, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad, India

Date of Web Publication12-Sep-2012

Correspondence Address:
Sangeeta Sehrawat
Panineeya Mahavidhyalaya Institute of Dental Sciences and Research Centre, Road No. 5, Kamalanagar, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad - 500 060
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


Rights and PermissionsRights and Permissions

How to cite this article:
Koduganti RR, Sehrawat S, Reddy P V. Authors' Reply. J Indian Soc Periodontol 2012;16:301

How to cite this URL:
Koduganti RR, Sehrawat S, Reddy P V. Authors' Reply. J Indian Soc Periodontol [serial online] 2012 [cited 2019 May 19];16:301. Available from: http://www.jisponline.com/text.asp?2012/16/3/301/100900

Sir,

In reply to the letter written with reference to our article, I would like to make the following comments:

  1. Considering the fact that the lesion could be premalignant/malignant (as it was not healing), a differential diagnosis was given as is mandatory for all cases before we arrive at the confirmatory diagnosis.
  2. It is not feasible to perform advanced diagnostic tests for all cases which present with ulcers in a busy dental college as ours.
  3. Once the lesion was confirmed to be squamous cell carcinoma of the gingiva, chest X-ray was done to rule out metastasis.
  4. In Indian setting, all the advanced diagnostic tests suggested by the reader are not feasible economically as preliminary procedures, if not funded, as of now.
  5. Regarding the level 5 neck dissection performed by the surgeon, I would like to emphasize that the surgery was not performed in our college and the decision to do a level 5 neck dissection along with a marginal mandibulectomy was the surgeon's and not ours.


I hope I have clarified the pertinent points raised by the reader.

Thanking you,






 

Top
   
 
  Search
 
  
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed796    
    Printed42    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded93    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal