LETTERS TO THE EDITOR J Oral Maxillofac Surg 72:2098-2101, 2014
PLAGIARISM IDENTIFIED IN JOMS ARTICLE To the Editor:—I am writing with a concern about potential plagiarism. My father and I published an article last year about a technique for addressing excessive gingival display.1 When reading the article by Gabric Panduric et al2 published in the Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, we were pleased to see our work cited but, on closer inspection, found that the authors went well beyond citation. Our concern is twofold. First, their claimed ‘‘novel,’’ ‘‘reversible trial’’ technique is exactly our technique and in fact the term we coined. Second, virtually the entire Surgical Procedure section is a verbatim copy of ours, as are the final 8 to 10 lines of the Patient Profile. We have no doubt that the Journal values academic integrity as highly as we do and thought that this must be brought to your attention.
On behalf of my colleagues, I express a deep regret because our intention was certainly not to plagiarize Dr Jacobs and his father’s work, but rather to use their great technique, and cite it repeatedly, for our patient with similar indications, thus showing the possibility of gummy smile treatment using laserassisted surgery and avoiding an invasive surgery such as orthognathic surgery. In addition, it is virtually impossible to plagiarize the clinical case report because of the individuality of each patient and surgical indications and the differences in each surgeon’s skills and experience. Furthermore, the purpose of publishing scientific and clinical articles should be the presentation of novel techniques, materials, and methods, with the tendency to promote their wide acceptance by colleagues and their application in everyday clinical practice. I apologize to Dr Jacobs and his father, on my personal behalf and on behalf of my colleagues, if they believed their work was plagiarized, although our real intention was to emphasize, not plagiarize, their work.
BRYAN JACOBS, DMD, MS PAUL JACOBS, DDS Chicago, IL
References
DRAGANA GABRIC PANDURIC, PHD, DMD Assistant Professor Zagreb, Croatia
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2014.08.008
1. Jacobs PJ, Jacobs BP: Lip repositioning with reversible trial for the management of excessive gingival display: A case series. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 33:169, 2013 2. Gabric Panduric D, Blaskovic M, Brozovic J, Susic M: Surgical treatment of excessive gingival display using lip repositioning technique and laser gingivectomy as an alternative to orthognathic surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 72:404.e1, 2014
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2014.07.044
In reply—I am writing with regard to the plagiarism allegation made by Drs Bryan Jacobs and Paul Jacobs in their Letter to the Editor. I deeply regret the allegation, particularly because Dr Jacobs’s article and work were cited in the Introduction and the Discussion. By using the term ‘‘novel’’ in our article, we did not mean ‘‘new, explained or used for the first time,’’ but rather a technique recently published in the literature (and cited). In the Surgical Procedure and Patient sections, we used the same surgical technique as cited in the Discussion, but with different laser parameters, and the incisions were started from the laser-assisted frenectomy lines. Regarding postoperative instructions, we used the same patient description as published in Dr Jacob’s work, but used the same instructions for most of our surgical patients. Similarity in sentence structure is unquestionable, but the work also was cited in the Discussion when explaining the presurgical evaluation and immediate postsurgical treatment.
INFERIOR ALVEOLAR NERVE FUNCTION AFTER SAGITTAL SPLIT OSTEOTOMY To the Editor:—In their recent article, Monnazzi et al1 concluded that ‘ . there was no statistically significant difference in the sensitivity of the labiomental area (inferior alveolar nerve distribution) regarding the instrument (reciprocating saw or piezosurgery instrument) used to perform the (sagittal split mandibular ramus) osteotomy (SSRO).’’ The most important point in this study, in our opinion, is contained in the authors’ statement in Materials and Methods: ‘‘. the split was performed using Smith spreaders (superior and inferior border separators); the use of osteotomes and chisels was avoided. .’’ The risk of injury to the inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) during the performance of the SSRO is well known.2 From our extensive experience with this operation and the analysis of our large series of IAN injuries associated with the SSRO, it has been shown clinically that the IAN has a variable course and position within the mandible vertically and horizontally vis-a-vis the lateral junction between the cortical and cancellous bone.2,3 Therefore, it has been our recommendation that the critical steps in protecting the IAN while separating the proximal and distal segments of the mandible during the SSRO include 1) obtaining good preoperative imaging studies that visualize the position of the IAN within the anterior
Letters to the Editor must be in reference to a specific article or editorial that has been published by the Journal. Letters must be submitted within 6 weeks of the article’s print publication or, for an online-only article, within 8 weeks of the date it first appeared online. Letters must be submitted electronically via the Elsevier Editorial System at http://ees.elsevier.com/ joms. Letters are subject to editing and those exceeding 500 words may be shortened or not accepted due to length. One photograph may accompany the letter if it is essential to understanding the subject. Letters should not duplicate similar material or material published elsewhere. There is no guarantee that any letter will be published. Prepublication proofs will not be provided. Submitting a Letter to the Editor constitutes the author’s permission for its publication in any issue or edition of the journal, in any form or medium.
2098
2099
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR mandibular ramus and posterior body in the mediolateral and superoinferior planes,4 2) protecting the IAN within the pterygomandibular space while making the horizontal osteotomy cut through cortical bone superior to the mandibular foramen on the medial surface of the mandibular ramus, 3) making the vertical osteotomy cut just barely through the lateral cortical bone of the mandibular body in the molar region to avoid an IAN resting just medial to this area, 4) using inferior and superior border spreaders to begin separation of the proximal and distal mandibular segments until the IAN is visualized and then completing the separation of the segments using osteotomes with the IAN under direct vision and retractor protection, 5) removing irregular bone and enlarging the groove for the inferior alveolar canal on the medial surface of the proximal mandibular segment to lower the risk of compression of the IAN when the segments are fixated, 6) placing a bone graft between the superior portion (above the inferior alveolar canal) of the proximal mandibular segment and the tooth-bearing distal segment to lower the risk of compression of the IAN during the application of internal fixation screws, and 7) using monocortical (rather than bicortical) fixation screws when indicated to lessen the chance of trauma to the underlying IAN. An operation as technically demanding as the SSRO requires the surgeon to exercise dexterity and caution no matter what instruments are chosen to perform the procedure. However, the choice of which type of instrument to use in making the cortical bone cuts (high-speed burs, reciprocating saw, piezosurgery instrument) seems of lesser importance in the risk to the IAN during SSRO compared with the surgical precautions listed earlier. ROGER A. MEYER, DDS, MS, MD SHAHROKH C. BAGHERI, DMD, MD Marietta, GA
References 1. Monnazzi MS, Gabrielli MFR, Passeri LA, et al: Inferior alveolar nerve function after sagittal split osteotomy by reciprocating saw of piezosurgery instrument: Prospective double-blinded study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 72:1168, 2014 2. Bagheri SC, Meyer RA, Ali Khan H, et al: Microsurgical repair of the peripheral trigeminal nerve after mandibular sagittal split ramus osteotomy. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 68:2770, 2010 3. Meyer RA, Bagheri SC: Etiology and prevention of nerve injuries, in Miloro M (ed). Trigeminal Nerve Injuries. Heidelberg, Germany, Springer, 2013. pp 41–43 4. Yoshioka I, Tanaka T, Khanal, et al: Relationship between inferior alveolar nerve position at mandibular second molar in patients with prognathism and possible occurrence of neurosensory disturbance after sagittal split ramus osteotomy. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 68:3022, 2010
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2014.06.463
RESPONSE TO JULY 2014 PERSPECTIVES ARTICLE To the Editor:—I am writing in regard to the Perspectives article published in the July 2014 issue of the Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery ( JOMS). I was excited to see the subject, and the data, because this has been a constant concern of mine. I have experienced this trend for
years in my local practice and at the hospitals that I serve. It is indeed an important issue and needs to be addressed by those who represent our profession and carry the burden of shaping our specialty’s delivery of services. However, I was disappointed by the entire ‘‘Implications for Oral-Maxillofacial Surgeons’’ section. First, although this is a ‘‘perspectives’’ article, it seems to me that the same principles of presentation should apply as to any other learned piece. The authors state 2 problems that they would glean from the data, but the problems are opinion and not necessarily supported by the data at all. Second (and the reason for my response), I am so tired of the hand-wringing over the ‘‘cottage industry.’’ Previous articles in the JOMS have referred to ‘‘teeth and titanium’’ oral surgeons. Fundamental to our profession (and to every other profession) is that we treat the conditions that present to us and the needs of our community. There are certainly those among us who have built reputations important enough that patients seek them out for treatment of the ‘‘full scope’’ of oral surgery. This can be achieved in a variety of ways, but marketing seems to be the primary method. And now we are overrun with our general dental colleagues marketing their way into our scope. Most of us, thankfully, can still keep very busy just serving the needs of the community in which we practice, with little need for billboards or TV spots. Third (and most concerning), the conclusion of the article seems to be that the data trend is the fault of oral surgeons abandoning the hospital. I have been on staff at the same hospital since I finished my residency. I have taken calls and, until recently, I never said no to any request for my care. The alarming trend is not that the oral surgeons have left, but that the hospital gives no incentive to the oral surgeon and is only too happy to keep minor dental infections in-house for days and weeks. On a weekly basis I receive calls for inpatient consultations on patients who have been in-house for days and have had extensive workups. Invariably the patient will be found to have a minor dental abscess that could have been treated in my office and followed as an outpatient. More often than not, the answer I get when I look into it is that the patient was seen in the emergency room previously and ‘ failed to follow-up’’ on discharge. After years of attrition, I am now the only oral surgeon on staff at my hospital (and in fact any hospital in my region). I spoke to the hospital administration about my predicament, in that I was the only oral surgeon left and I was taking all the emergency room calls. I suggested that perhaps it was time that they consider a per diem. They were not interested and I was told that I was responsible for the calls. I decided to go to consulting staff. The story goes on, but you get the picture. This cannot be a unique situation. I am aware that hospitals have a mandate to serve the acute-care patients who arrive at their door. Also, I am aware that they receive governmental compensation that they do not share with the surgeon who actual provides the care. Our system is broken and I do what I can to serve my share of the population. I take public aid and sometimes just treat patients without compensation. However, I choose to do this in my office, where I know that I am more efficient (by an order of magnitude). Whatever absurdity exists in our system that allows the ‘‘self-pay’’ (no-pay) patient to be admitted for a week or more for a vestibular abscess (or less) is unfortunate, but far beyond my ability or interest to correct. It is not a system that I will willingly involve myself in. To the extent that the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons and the JOMS want to force us or guilt
PLAGIARISM IDENTIFIED IN JOMS ARTICLE To the Editor:—I am writing with a concern about potential plagiarism. My father and I published an article last year about a technique for addressing excessive gingival display.1 When reading the article by Gabric Panduric et al2 published in the Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, we were pleased to see our work cited but, on closer inspection, found that the authors went well beyond citation. Our concern is twofold. First, their claimed ‘‘novel,’’ ‘‘reversible trial’’ technique is exactly our technique and in fact the term we coined. Second, virtually the entire Surgical Procedure section is a verbatim copy of ours, as are the final 8 to 10 lines of the Patient Profile. We have no doubt that the Journal values academic integrity as highly as we do and thought that this must be brought to your attention.
On behalf of my colleagues, I express a deep regret because our intention was certainly not to plagiarize Dr Jacobs and his father’s work, but rather to use their great technique, and cite it repeatedly, for our patient with similar indications, thus showing the possibility of gummy smile treatment using laserassisted surgery and avoiding an invasive surgery such as orthognathic surgery. In addition, it is virtually impossible to plagiarize the clinical case report because of the individuality of each patient and surgical indications and the differences in each surgeon’s skills and experience. Furthermore, the purpose of publishing scientific and clinical articles should be the presentation of novel techniques, materials, and methods, with the tendency to promote their wide acceptance by colleagues and their application in everyday clinical practice. I apologize to Dr Jacobs and his father, on my personal behalf and on behalf of my colleagues, if they believed their work was plagiarized, although our real intention was to emphasize, not plagiarize, their work.
BRYAN JACOBS, DMD, MS PAUL JACOBS, DDS Chicago, IL
References
DRAGANA GABRIC PANDURIC, PHD, DMD Assistant Professor Zagreb, Croatia
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2014.08.008
1. Jacobs PJ, Jacobs BP: Lip repositioning with reversible trial for the management of excessive gingival display: A case series. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 33:169, 2013 2. Gabric Panduric D, Blaskovic M, Brozovic J, Susic M: Surgical treatment of excessive gingival display using lip repositioning technique and laser gingivectomy as an alternative to orthognathic surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 72:404.e1, 2014
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2014.07.044
In reply—I am writing with regard to the plagiarism allegation made by Drs Bryan Jacobs and Paul Jacobs in their Letter to the Editor. I deeply regret the allegation, particularly because Dr Jacobs’s article and work were cited in the Introduction and the Discussion. By using the term ‘‘novel’’ in our article, we did not mean ‘‘new, explained or used for the first time,’’ but rather a technique recently published in the literature (and cited). In the Surgical Procedure and Patient sections, we used the same surgical technique as cited in the Discussion, but with different laser parameters, and the incisions were started from the laser-assisted frenectomy lines. Regarding postoperative instructions, we used the same patient description as published in Dr Jacob’s work, but used the same instructions for most of our surgical patients. Similarity in sentence structure is unquestionable, but the work also was cited in the Discussion when explaining the presurgical evaluation and immediate postsurgical treatment.
INFERIOR ALVEOLAR NERVE FUNCTION AFTER SAGITTAL SPLIT OSTEOTOMY To the Editor:—In their recent article, Monnazzi et al1 concluded that ‘ . there was no statistically significant difference in the sensitivity of the labiomental area (inferior alveolar nerve distribution) regarding the instrument (reciprocating saw or piezosurgery instrument) used to perform the (sagittal split mandibular ramus) osteotomy (SSRO).’’ The most important point in this study, in our opinion, is contained in the authors’ statement in Materials and Methods: ‘‘. the split was performed using Smith spreaders (superior and inferior border separators); the use of osteotomes and chisels was avoided. .’’ The risk of injury to the inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) during the performance of the SSRO is well known.2 From our extensive experience with this operation and the analysis of our large series of IAN injuries associated with the SSRO, it has been shown clinically that the IAN has a variable course and position within the mandible vertically and horizontally vis-a-vis the lateral junction between the cortical and cancellous bone.2,3 Therefore, it has been our recommendation that the critical steps in protecting the IAN while separating the proximal and distal segments of the mandible during the SSRO include 1) obtaining good preoperative imaging studies that visualize the position of the IAN within the anterior
Letters to the Editor must be in reference to a specific article or editorial that has been published by the Journal. Letters must be submitted within 6 weeks of the article’s print publication or, for an online-only article, within 8 weeks of the date it first appeared online. Letters must be submitted electronically via the Elsevier Editorial System at http://ees.elsevier.com/ joms. Letters are subject to editing and those exceeding 500 words may be shortened or not accepted due to length. One photograph may accompany the letter if it is essential to understanding the subject. Letters should not duplicate similar material or material published elsewhere. There is no guarantee that any letter will be published. Prepublication proofs will not be provided. Submitting a Letter to the Editor constitutes the author’s permission for its publication in any issue or edition of the journal, in any form or medium.
2098
2099
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR mandibular ramus and posterior body in the mediolateral and superoinferior planes,4 2) protecting the IAN within the pterygomandibular space while making the horizontal osteotomy cut through cortical bone superior to the mandibular foramen on the medial surface of the mandibular ramus, 3) making the vertical osteotomy cut just barely through the lateral cortical bone of the mandibular body in the molar region to avoid an IAN resting just medial to this area, 4) using inferior and superior border spreaders to begin separation of the proximal and distal mandibular segments until the IAN is visualized and then completing the separation of the segments using osteotomes with the IAN under direct vision and retractor protection, 5) removing irregular bone and enlarging the groove for the inferior alveolar canal on the medial surface of the proximal mandibular segment to lower the risk of compression of the IAN when the segments are fixated, 6) placing a bone graft between the superior portion (above the inferior alveolar canal) of the proximal mandibular segment and the tooth-bearing distal segment to lower the risk of compression of the IAN during the application of internal fixation screws, and 7) using monocortical (rather than bicortical) fixation screws when indicated to lessen the chance of trauma to the underlying IAN. An operation as technically demanding as the SSRO requires the surgeon to exercise dexterity and caution no matter what instruments are chosen to perform the procedure. However, the choice of which type of instrument to use in making the cortical bone cuts (high-speed burs, reciprocating saw, piezosurgery instrument) seems of lesser importance in the risk to the IAN during SSRO compared with the surgical precautions listed earlier. ROGER A. MEYER, DDS, MS, MD SHAHROKH C. BAGHERI, DMD, MD Marietta, GA
References 1. Monnazzi MS, Gabrielli MFR, Passeri LA, et al: Inferior alveolar nerve function after sagittal split osteotomy by reciprocating saw of piezosurgery instrument: Prospective double-blinded study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 72:1168, 2014 2. Bagheri SC, Meyer RA, Ali Khan H, et al: Microsurgical repair of the peripheral trigeminal nerve after mandibular sagittal split ramus osteotomy. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 68:2770, 2010 3. Meyer RA, Bagheri SC: Etiology and prevention of nerve injuries, in Miloro M (ed). Trigeminal Nerve Injuries. Heidelberg, Germany, Springer, 2013. pp 41–43 4. Yoshioka I, Tanaka T, Khanal, et al: Relationship between inferior alveolar nerve position at mandibular second molar in patients with prognathism and possible occurrence of neurosensory disturbance after sagittal split ramus osteotomy. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 68:3022, 2010
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2014.06.463
RESPONSE TO JULY 2014 PERSPECTIVES ARTICLE To the Editor:—I am writing in regard to the Perspectives article published in the July 2014 issue of the Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery ( JOMS). I was excited to see the subject, and the data, because this has been a constant concern of mine. I have experienced this trend for
years in my local practice and at the hospitals that I serve. It is indeed an important issue and needs to be addressed by those who represent our profession and carry the burden of shaping our specialty’s delivery of services. However, I was disappointed by the entire ‘‘Implications for Oral-Maxillofacial Surgeons’’ section. First, although this is a ‘‘perspectives’’ article, it seems to me that the same principles of presentation should apply as to any other learned piece. The authors state 2 problems that they would glean from the data, but the problems are opinion and not necessarily supported by the data at all. Second (and the reason for my response), I am so tired of the hand-wringing over the ‘‘cottage industry.’’ Previous articles in the JOMS have referred to ‘‘teeth and titanium’’ oral surgeons. Fundamental to our profession (and to every other profession) is that we treat the conditions that present to us and the needs of our community. There are certainly those among us who have built reputations important enough that patients seek them out for treatment of the ‘‘full scope’’ of oral surgery. This can be achieved in a variety of ways, but marketing seems to be the primary method. And now we are overrun with our general dental colleagues marketing their way into our scope. Most of us, thankfully, can still keep very busy just serving the needs of the community in which we practice, with little need for billboards or TV spots. Third (and most concerning), the conclusion of the article seems to be that the data trend is the fault of oral surgeons abandoning the hospital. I have been on staff at the same hospital since I finished my residency. I have taken calls and, until recently, I never said no to any request for my care. The alarming trend is not that the oral surgeons have left, but that the hospital gives no incentive to the oral surgeon and is only too happy to keep minor dental infections in-house for days and weeks. On a weekly basis I receive calls for inpatient consultations on patients who have been in-house for days and have had extensive workups. Invariably the patient will be found to have a minor dental abscess that could have been treated in my office and followed as an outpatient. More often than not, the answer I get when I look into it is that the patient was seen in the emergency room previously and ‘ failed to follow-up’’ on discharge. After years of attrition, I am now the only oral surgeon on staff at my hospital (and in fact any hospital in my region). I spoke to the hospital administration about my predicament, in that I was the only oral surgeon left and I was taking all the emergency room calls. I suggested that perhaps it was time that they consider a per diem. They were not interested and I was told that I was responsible for the calls. I decided to go to consulting staff. The story goes on, but you get the picture. This cannot be a unique situation. I am aware that hospitals have a mandate to serve the acute-care patients who arrive at their door. Also, I am aware that they receive governmental compensation that they do not share with the surgeon who actual provides the care. Our system is broken and I do what I can to serve my share of the population. I take public aid and sometimes just treat patients without compensation. However, I choose to do this in my office, where I know that I am more efficient (by an order of magnitude). Whatever absurdity exists in our system that allows the ‘‘self-pay’’ (no-pay) patient to be admitted for a week or more for a vestibular abscess (or less) is unfortunate, but far beyond my ability or interest to correct. It is not a system that I will willingly involve myself in. To the extent that the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons and the JOMS want to force us or guilt
