|LETTER TO EDITOR
|Year : 2012 | Volume
| Issue : 3 | Page : 301
Rekha Rani Koduganti, Sangeeta Sehrawat, P Veerendranath Reddy
Department of Periodontics, Panineeya Mahavidhyalaya Institute of Dental Sciences and Research Centre, Kamalanagar, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad, India
|Date of Web Publication||12-Sep-2012|
Panineeya Mahavidhyalaya Institute of Dental Sciences and Research Centre, Road No. 5, Kamalanagar, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad - 500 060
Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None
|How to cite this article:|
Koduganti RR, Sehrawat S, Reddy P V. Authors' Reply. J Indian Soc Periodontol 2012;16:301
In reply to the letter written with reference to our article, I would like to make the following comments:
- 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.
- It is not feasible to perform advanced diagnostic tests for all cases which present with ulcers in a busy dental college as ours.
- Once the lesion was confirmed to be squamous cell carcinoma of the gingiva, chest X-ray was done to rule out metastasis.
- 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.
- 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.