Endodontic Treatment of a Mandibular Molar with Radix Paramolaris: A Case Report

Review Data

Q: Is the topic relevant to the journal area of interest? Is it contemporary and interesting for

researchers?

A: Good

Abstract & Keywords

Q: Are all required components included in the abstract? Are the keywords appropriately chosen?

A: Very Good

Goal

Q: Is the goal explicitly stated in the Introduction? Is its formulation clear and unambiguous?

A: Good

Structure

Q: Is the paper's structure coherent? Is it in coherence with the goal of the paper?

A: Good

Tools and Methods

Q: Are methods the author uses adequate and well used?

A: Good

Discussion & Conclusion

Q: Is it related to the results presented before? Do you consider them as coherent?

A: Good

Comments: The Discussion establishes that Radix paramolaris (RP) is a rare anatomical variant for mandibular molar anatomy. The Discussion illustrates that additional root is often difficult to identify on periapical radiographs and practicing dentists should be aware of these morphologies when treating mandibular molars. The clinical management approach to root canal treatment may be altered depending on the complexity of the canal system. The Discussion highlights the importance of using CBCT imaging in addition to periapical radiographs to better understand the root canal anatomy and treat a tooth with RP. Also, the ability to obtain 3D data and rapidly create models can help clinicians to manage such rare conditions with more confidence. Relevant literature has been cited to support the discussion. The study concludes that cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and 3D printing is important in the nonsurgical retreatment of a case with RP and a failing root canal treatment.

Literature

Q: Does the author utilize relevant literature?

A: Good

Author's knowledge

Q: What is the level of the author’s knowledge? Does the author utilize all recent contributions relevant to the topic?

A: Good

Length

Q: Is the length of the paper adequate to the significance of the topic? Do you suggest shortening the paper without losing its value?

A: Good

Figures & Tables

Q: Does the author use them suitably? Are legend and notations clear?

A: Good

Writing style

Q: Is it clear and understandable?

A: Good

Comments: Except the following error was detected:

1.     The word “scarce” has been misspelled in the text.

Further comments on the paper

Comments: The case report presents the rare case of a nonsurgical retreatment of the complex root canal morphology of radix paramolaris (RP) in a 43-year-old woman, with pain in chewing on tooth #18 since the completion of previous root canal therapy. The study also establishes the importance of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and 3D printing in the nonsurgical retreatment of a case with RP and a failing root canal treatment. 24 hours post operation the patient’s pain while chewing had decreased and at a 2-week follow-up, the patient’s symptoms had completely resolved. The study emphasizes the need for clinicians to understand the possible variations of root canal morphology of mandibular molars. The study concludes that in order to successfully treat a tooth with RP CBCT imaging in addition to periapical radiographs is important.

Q: Would you recommend this manuscript for further publication?

A: Yes - Suitable to be published

If you have any questions and clarifications you can write to the journal.

Thanks,
Science Repository Team