See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/221864587

Research methodology in Dentistry: Part I – The essentials and relevance of

research

Article  in  Journal of Conservative Dentistry · March 2012

DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.92598 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS
15 4,314

1 author:

Jogikalmat Krithikadatta
Saveetha University
27 PUBLICATIONS   501 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

CRIS guidelines View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jogikalmat Krithikadatta on 02 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

[Downloaded free from http://www.jcd.org.in on Wednesday, March 27, 2013, IP: 117.217.204.26]  ||  Click here to download free Android application for this journal

Invited Review

Research methodology in Dentistry: Part I – The

essentials and relevance of research
Jogikalmat Krithikadatta
Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Mennakshi Ammal Dental College and Hospitals, Maduravoyal, Chennai –
600095, India

Abstract
The need for scientific evidence should be the basis of clinical practice. The field of restorative dentistry and endodontics is
evolving at a rapid pace, with the introduction of several materials, instruments, and equipments. However, there is minimal
information of their relevance in clinical practice. On the one hand, material and laboratory research is critical, however; its
translation into clinical practice is not being substantiated enough with clinical research. This four part review series focuses on
methods to improve evidence-based practice, by improving methods to integrate laboratory and clinical research.
Keywords: Clinical research; evidence-based dentistry; measurement iterative loop; Patient/Population/Problem, intervention,
comparison, and outcome format; research methodology

INTRODUCTION The purpose of this review series is to help the reader to

The field of dental research in India has witnessed
exponential growth in the last five years.[1]However,
scientific publications in international peer-reviewed
journals have been few.[2] The lacuna of Indian contribution
to international scientific literature is probably a skewed
understanding of research and its contribution in
effecting improved patient care. The primary purpose of
research is to produce new knowledge or find new ways
of making the existing knowledge available to those
who need it. Research is not a separate speciality which
is practiced by a few but it is a systematic approach of
reasoning, documenting, analysing and reporting unusual
clinical observations that we come across in everyday
clinical practice. Whether one is a “doer” or a “user” of
research, a thorough understanding of the methodology
is essential. In addition to individual practitioners, the
“users” of research includes 1) professional organizations
that set “practice guidelines”;2) policy makers (sometimes
called as “decision makers”) and 3) program managers
(for example, state or national government managers
of dental health programs). While the academicians and
research scholars (teaching institutions) have a unique
position to be “Doers” of research. The value for research
for its own sake is limited, and therefore understanding
the essential concepts in Research Methodology is vital in
producing dependable knowledge.
organize the thought process when considering research
needs and methods. It also aims to sensitize the mind to
research avenues that would be beneficial to material and
clinical research in particular and improving the quality
of clinical care in general. This four-part review series
encompasses topics on essentials of research, fundamentals
in biostatistics, observational studies, and experimental
studies in each part.
Conduct of research:The head start
Every action is first conceived in the mind and later executed.
Planning a good research project forms the primary basis
of meaningful publication. Certain fundamental requisites
are listed in Table 1. Focus in a particular area of interest is
essential to build up a strong forte in academic excellence.
Random choice of research projects dilutes the resource
contribution in random directions and results in lack of
identity of the person or faculty. Generating research
hypothesis must aim at answering clinically relevant
questions. The rationale for the choice of a particular
stream could also result in a new concept of thinking or
change the methods of treatment protocols.
It is prudent to decide apriori as to whom the results of a
particular research question would be useful and will the
results be applicable to patients in dental practices in the
real world. Conventionally, in-vitro or laboratory research

Address for correspondence: Access this article online

Dr. Jogikalmat Krithikadatta, Department of Conservative Quick Response Code:
Dentistry and Endodontics, Mennakshi Ammal Dental College Website:
www.jcd.org.in
and Hospitals, Maduravoyal, Chennai – 600095, India. E-mail:
drkrithikadatta@hotmail.com
Date of submission: 07.01.2012 DOI:
Review completed: 09.01.2012 10.4103/0972-0707.92598
Date of acceptance: 21.01.2012

Journal of Conservative Dentistry | Jan-Mar 2012 | Vol 15 | Issue 1 5

[Downloaded free from http://www.jcd.org.in on Wednesday, March 27, 2013, IP: 117.217.204.26]  ||  Click here to download free Android application for this journal
Krithikadatta: Research methodology for dentist: The essentials
studies have good internal validity but poor external
validity which means that the results obtained are only
applicable to similar samples of the study. In other words,
the results may not transfer to the clinical behaviour
of the material. On the other hand, clinical studies have
good external validity because they are tested on samples/
subjects that are closely related to the clinical condition
and most often representative of all individuals with the
condition; however they are more complex since so many
other factors may influence the outcome of interest.
To understand validity, let us consider the research question
on dentin bonding agents (DBA). In-vitro assessment of
dentin bonding agents is usually measured in terms of bond
strength and microleakage. In this scenario, all the samples
and procedures are standardized to a specific methodology,
that is, dentin cylinders 5 mm in height, with 4 mm of
composite material, x N force at 0.5 cross-head speed,
and so on. The bond strength values obtained can be best
extrapolated to a similar set of conditions in the laboratory
and may not deliver the same performance clinically to
patients. On the contrary, if we conduct a clinical study to
evaluate the performance of dentin bonding agents, the
methodology would include a randomized controlled trial
involving the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions
((NCCL), considered the ideal for bonding agent testing),
the clinical evaluation criteria recommended by the United
States Public Health System (USPHS), and followed over a
period of time. The results of the study can be extrapolated
to all similar patients requiring restoration of NCCLs. Hence,
the valid method of testing the ultimate performance of
DBA is by a clinical trial and not just bond strength testing.
However, in-vitro studies provide an insight into which DBA
is the best among the available, to be tested clinically. In-
vitro studies provide internal validity, that is, they tell us if
a particular drug or procedure works, but external validity
questions if it is of use to the patient population at large,
which can only be determined by clinical trials on patients.
Feasibility in terms of time, cost, samples, and infrastructure
are vital to set a logistic time frame for the functioning and
completion of the study. Finally, a study that does not adhere
to ethical principles both for in-vitro and clinical designs,
fails to answer clinically relevant questions. The principles
of ethics are not restricted only to the handling of human
participants, but also encompass the ethics followed in the
methodology and reporting of results. The Indian Council
of Medical Research (ICMR) has comprehensive guidelines
for conducting experimental studies in India.[3]
Clinical epidemiology
The term Epidemiology refers to the study of the
distribution and determinants of health-related states or
events (including disease), and the application of these
methods to the control of diseases and other health
problems.[4]Erroneously in India, this science is often
6 Journal of Conservative Dentistry | Jan-Mar 2012 | Vol 15 | Issue 1
Table 1: Requisites of good research
Focus Area of interest/expertise
Meaningful progress
Rationale Clinically relevant
Proof of concept
Challenge /change current treatment methods
Validity Will the results be useful and to whom?
In-vitro studies – Good Internal Validity
Clinical studies – Moderate to good External Validity
Feasibility Time
Study population/ Samples
Infra-structure
Skill/aptitude
Ethics Do unto other what you would do unto you.
Budget Materials
Manpower
Equipment
dissociated from dental clinical research and is regarded to
be a practice under community dentistry. Hence research
methods described under epidemiology have also not
been used in answering many of our clinical research
questions. David Sackett, in 1969, coined the term clinical
epidemiology, which is the, “application, by a physician
who provides direct patient care, of epidemiological
and biometric methods, to the study of diagnostic and
therapeutic processes, in order to effect an improvement
in health.”[5]This concept identifies the clinician as the
epidemiologist, which chiefly includes practitioners
(general/specialist), students, and academicians, who are
constantly involved in patient care. Almost four decades
since this concept was introduced, our fraternity is waking
up to this approach. It is important to note that knowledge
of the disease process and treatment protocols constitute
clinical knowledge. This forms only one essential part
of clinical epidemiology. In order to understand the
involvement of clinicians in clinical research, we need to be
aware of certain disease manifestations in the community,
with regard to the magnitude of the problem and measures
to deliver dental care.
Consider this question being asked by the Head of
Department of an institution, “What is the best endodontic
regime for patients being treated in my department?”
Traditionally, this question would be answered by schools of
thought, textbook evidence, and findings reported in peer-
reviewed literature. In reality, this simple question has the
ability to raise meaningful research questions if we could
apply this to the measurement iterative loop proposed by
Tugwell et al.[6] [Figure1]. The measurement iterative loop
breaks up the disease cycle into distinct component steps.
It is iterative because, each step logically leads to the next,
and thus comes back to the first step thus ‘closing’ the
loop. Each step in the loop has the capacity to generate
several research questions.
In this loop, the first step is to ascertain the burden of illness.
[Downloaded free from http://www.jcd.org.in on Wednesday, March 27, 2013, IP: 117.217.204.26]  ||  Click here to download free Android application for this journal
Figure 1: The measurement iterative loop
The burden of illness (e.g., patients requiring root canal
treatment) could be measured among the patients seeking
dental care in the hospital or in a defined population. The
former will provide an answer to the rate of occurrence of
endodontic disease and the latter addresses the prevalence
of endodontic disease, both of which would vary with place
and time. The burden of illness could be subdivided into:
(a) Unavoidable and (b) avoidable. Avoidable burden of
illness comprises of disability, symptoms, and morbidity,
for which efficacious caries preventive and intervention
methods are present. The unavoidable burden of illness of
disability comprises of symptoms and morbidity for which
no efficacious prevention or cure exists. Eg if the tooth
has been lost then root canal treatment is not possible.
The focus on research in this area should be an effort to
transfer the burden from unavoidable to avoidable.
Second is to identify and assess the possible cause of the
burden of disease. The etiology and risk-factor assessment
of a multifactorial disease like pulpal and periapical
pathology in itself generates a lot of research avenues.
This step also makes use of several traditional study
designs to derive clinically significant conclusions. This
step identifies the factors against which an intervention
can reduce the burden of illness, for example, failure of
primary endodontic treatment. To name a few obvious
causes, inadequate cleaning and shaping, missed canals,
and incomplete obturation. The risk factors in association
to this failure could be: Vitality status of the pulp during
initial endodontic treatment, amount of remaining tooth
structure, and type of tooth.
Defining factors for causation also requires that there
should be well-defined, specific, and reproducible
definitions for both the disease state and the risk factors.
Developing such criteria for defining disease and causative
or risk factors contribute to increased diagnostic accuracy.
The third step of the loop is the most significant. Having
identified the ‘intervenable’ factors, it is important to
Journal of Conservative Dentistry | Jan-Mar 2012 | Vol 15 | Issue 1
Krithikadatta: Research methodology for dentist: The essentials
study if interventions against them will work. After
identifying interventions, in vitro studies are carried out
when necessary, and then the successful interventions are
tried on humans. The initial trials should be to determine
Efficacy. This means that it should be determined whether
the intervention works if given in the right dose using the
right methods, for the right duration, that is, Can it work in
ideal circumstances?
Once this is achieved, the intervention (preventive and
restorative) methods are applied to the community, that
is, patients seeking treatment for failed endodontic
treatment or among the general population at a risk of
developing failure of primary endodontic treatment. This
step is Community effectiveness, which measures how
well an intervention can work in real life. It assesses the
benefit/harm ratio of potentially feasible interventions
and estimates the reduction of burden of illness, if
the program is successful. Community effectiveness is
determined by five factors: (a) Efficacy, (b) Screening and
diagnostic accuracy, (c) Evaluation of health care provider
compliance, (d) Evaluation of patient compliance, and (e)
Evaluation of coverage. To understand this better let us
consider the question of treating symptomatic irreversible
pulpitis with Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy
in Department of Endodontics at a dental college and give
hypothetical percentages of success for each factor and
compute the community effectiveness.
1. Efficacy: Will the current treatment do more good
than harm in treating patients who are diagnosed
correctly and fully comply with recommendations for
treatment?(100%)
2. Screening and diagnostic accuracy: Does the department
have adequate diagnostic methods to identify patients
with irreversible pulpitis and ensure methods to follow-
up the disease/recovery status? (90%)
3. Evaluation of health provider compliance: Is a
postgraduate student competent enough to perform
MTA pulpotomy? (80%)
4. Evaluation of patient compliance: Will the patient
comply with the treatment and follow-up for MTA
pulpotomy compared to conventional endodontic
treatment? As there are chances that postoperative pain
with MTA pulpotomy could be a possibility, the patient
suffering from this complication can resort to another
dentist for relief. (80%)
5. Evaluation of coverage: Is the treatment available
to all potential patients who could benefit from the
new method? Is there access to a dental college or
knowledge of the treatment? (90%)
Now community effectiveness can be computed using
the Multiplicative law of combining probabilities (P),[7]
considering the probability of each of these factors
Community Effectiveness = P (Efficacy 100% x diagnostic
7
[Downloaded free from http://www.jcd.org.in on Wednesday, March 27, 2013, IP: 117.217.204.26]  ||  Click here to download free Android application for this journal

Krithikadatta: Research methodology for dentist: The essentials

accuracy 90% x health provider compliance 80% x patient the reliability of information or from evidence derived from
compliance 80% x coverage 90%) = 52% a scientific study,.[9]

After determining an effective treatment plan for the
community/patients, the efficiency of the same needs to be
evaluated. This step determines the relationships between
costs and effects of options within and across the program.
Cost could be a major deterrent in MTA pulpotomy. This
could propel ingenious preparations to match commercially
available MTA, or allocate funds to deliver this treatment
to indicated patients. This is followed by the synthesis
and implementation of MTA pulpotomy as a standard of
care for indicated patients with irreversible pulpitis. This
is done after integration of the feasibility of community
effectiveness and efficiency. Any program implemented
needs to be followed up with systematic documentation
and monitoring. It should include markers for success and
failure on the basis short-term, intermediate, and long-
term treatment outcomes.
With success data in hand, the burden of illness should
again be re-assessed, to ascertain any modifications
required within the existing program.
Era of evidence-based dentistry
Evidence-based practice is defined as, “the conscientious,
explicit, and judicious use of current best evidence in
making decisions about the care of individual patients. The
practice of evidence-based medicine means integrating
individual clinical expertise with the best available external
clinical evidence from systematic research.”[8] Individual
clinical expertise is the proficiency and clinical judgment
that is often a summation of clinical experience and
clinical practice. This systematic clinical research in our
field includes both in-vitro and clinical research, with equal
importance. The sensible transition to clinical research
by making use of the conclusions of in-vitro research will
contribute evidence to various steps of the measurement
iterative loop. It is often observed that the thrust for
clinical research is feeble and as a result there is insufficient
evidence from laboratory research translating to clinical
practice. The ideal place to enable contribution to the best
clinical evidence would undoubtedly be the institutional
organization, which has the balance between clinical
expertise from the teachers end and the requirement for
research projects from the students’ end. The only missing
link is a properly planned research, which can be fullfilled by
employing the measurement iterative loop.
There are five levels, and each level has sub-ranks as shown
in Figure 2.[7]
Level I
a. Meta-Analysis
b. Systematic review (SR) of Randomized Controlled Trials
(RCT)
c. Randomized Controlled Trials
Level II
a. Systematic review of Cohort Studies
b. Cohort Studies/Poor quality RCT
Level III
a. Systematic review of Case-Control Studies
b. Case-Control Studies
c. In-vitro Studies
Level IV
Case Series/Cross-sectional studies/Poor quality case
control studies
Level V
Case Reports/Expert opinion/Literature review.
It must be noted, with caution, that the level of evidence
is only a stratification based on the information that is
obtained from each method, with minimal bias, and these
levels in no way rank the study design. It is logical to
perceive that study designs are chosen based on research
questions. For example, even though Randomized Clinical
Trials provide the best evidence, this study design is not
meant to identify risk factors for occurrence of disease
(determined by case-control study) or disease occurrence/
prognosis (determined by Cohort study). Hence, levels of
evidence are a logical ranking for evidence rather than a
ranking for study designs.

The awareness of evidence-based dentistry is growing

not only on the research/clinical front, but also from
patients seeking quality dental care. Hence, the possibility
of a research study being acknowledged in scientific
literature is often driven by the relevance of evidence that
a particular research study can deliver. There is a certain
hierarchy termed as ‘Levels of Evidence,’ purely based on Figure 2: Levels of evidence

8 Journal of Conservative Dentistry | Jan-Mar 2012 | Vol 15 | Issue 1

[Downloaded free from http://www.jcd.org.in on Wednesday, March 27, 2013, IP: 117.217.204.26]  ||  Click here to download free Android application for this journal
What is your research question?
With the understanding of the measurement iterative loop
and the significance to generate relevant evidence for clinical
practice, the research question should aim at focusing on
one primary issue at a time. The method to identify and
prioritize research questions is given in Figure 3.
A well-built research question should include four parts,
referred to as the PICO format, which includes Patient/
Population/Problem, Intervention, Comparison, and
Outcome (PICO).[10]
Patient/population/problem — Defines the condition of
interest. This is usually derived from the patients’ chief
complaint in a clinical situation (in particular or on a larger
population) or is derived from the problem faced in a
particular material research.
Figure 3: Method used to identify and prioritize research questions
Journal of Conservative Dentistry | Jan-Mar 2012 | Vol 15 | Issue 1
Krithikadatta: Research methodology for dentist: The essentials
Intervention [or ‘exposure’-making it PECO for causation
questions]— It is important to identify what has been planned
for the patient or the problem. Depending on the problem, this
may include the use of a specific diagnostic test, treatment,
medication or the recommendation to the patient, to
use a product or procedure. If the problem measures the
causation of a particular disease, then the etiological agent
is assumed as the intervention.
Comparison — It is an alternative to the intervention under
study.
Outcome(s) — This pertains to the result of the study
preferably outcomes that can be measured accurately that
are important to the patient.
The PICO format can be used to generate a research question
for determining the causation of disease, diagnosis of a
9
[Downloaded free from http://www.jcd.org.in on Wednesday, March 27, 2013, IP: 117.217.204.26]  ||  Click here to download free Android application for this journal

Krithikadatta: Research methodology for dentist: The essentials

disease or therapy and prognosis of particular condition/ Role of biostatistics

disease. Examples for each are given in Table 2.
Although the PICO format is best applied to intervention
studies and experimental designs, research questions for
all other study designs can also be formulated using this
approach.
Role of study designs
Both in-vitro and clinical study designs for various
questions arising from clinical practice or knowledge can
be determined by applying various sections of the iterative
loop. Depending on the research question, the structure of
each study design facilitates the derivation of appropriate
answers. Prior to choosing the study design, there has to
be a valid research question. The genesis of a research
question should primarily focus on answering several
aspects of a broader research interest. For example, if the
research interest lies in stem cell research, then the best
source of stem cells, ideal growth environment for stem
cells, potential differentiation of stem cells into tissues,
confluence of growth obtained by different processing
methods, clinical application of laboratory-derived
stem cells, storage of stem cells, potential for malignant
transformation of stem cells, and so on, form the several
aspects or avenues to generate research questions. The
primary effort in research is not to focus on the research question,
but to focus on your research interest. on study designs and its
relevance in answering specific research question will be
dealt with in detail in the subsequent articles of this review
series on research methodology.
The Role of Biostatistics is often overlooked and ignored in
the current research work in our speciality. Biological systems
form a dynamic continuum and variation between the units
forming the biological systems (people, teeth, bacteria, etc.)
is the norm. On account of this variability within the systems,
it is often difficult to differentiate between groups within
the system. The science of biostatistics helps us to quantify
and evaluate its variability within and between groups that
make up the biological systems. Statistics is not absolute; it
is a measure of the probabilities of occurrence of an event.
Biostatistics is less mathematics and more a method of
determining the relevance of the research findings by
application of statistical methods. This retains equal
importance in both in-vitro as well as clinical research,
because this statistical inference lays a foundation for the
evidence deduced from any study. Hence the role of the
statistician and the clinical researcher are equivalent in
finding answers to any research question. The next part on
research methodology focuses on understanding biostatics
for dental research.
The research processes both in-vitro and clinical studies can
be best summarized by the flow chart in Figure 4.
CONCLUSION
The need for good research is to find the best evidence
for clinical practice, for specific problems, and to address
methods in reducing the burden of illness on a larger scale.

Table 2: Use of PICO format to generate research questions

Scenario Research idea PICO Research question
Problem Intervention Comparison Outcome
Causation Enterococcus Endodontic failure Enterococcus Fusobacteriumnucleatum Periapical Is Enterococcus fecalis
fecalis in causing fecalis lesion responsible in causing
endodontic failure. periapical lesion in root canal
treated teeth as compared to
Fusobacterium nucleatum?
Diagnositic Estimation of pulp Estimation of Pulse Thermal testing Provide Does pulse oximetry provide
vitality in replanted pulp vitality in oximetry accurate and accurate and reliable
tooth with immature replanted tooth with reliable results results on pulp vitality when
apex. immature apex. on pulp vitality compared to thermal testing
in replanted tooth with
immature apex?
Therapy Reduction of white School children CPP-ACP 2% Sodium Fluoride Reduction in Is CPP-ACP effective in
spot lesions (WSL) suffering from WSL WSL reducing WSL in School
using Casein children suffering from WSL
phosphopeptide- as compared to 2% Sodium
Amorphous Calcium Fluoride?
Phosphate (CPP-
ACP)
Prognosis Single visit Single visit Teeth with Teeth without periapical Successful Is prognosis of endodontic
endodontics endodontics in teeth periapical lesion treatment treatment performed in single
in teeth with with periapical lesion outcome visit affected by the presence
periapical lesion lesion of periapical lesion?
and endodontic
treatment outcome.

10 Journal of Conservative Dentistry | Jan-Mar 2012 | Vol 15 | Issue 1

[Downloaded free from http://www.jcd.org.in on Wednesday, March 27, 2013, IP: 117.217.204.26]  ||  Click here to download free Android application for this journal

Krithikadatta: Research methodology for dentist: The essentials

of Medicine University of Ottawa, Canada, Prof. Emeritus. Vic

Neufeld, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Canada
and Prof. Manjula Datta, Retd Prof & Head of Epidemiology, The
Tamilnadu MGR Medical university for having accepted to review
the manuscript and for their valuable inputs in the preparation of
the same and Chennai Dental Research Foundation, Chennai for
their support.

REFERENCES
1. Gopikrishna V. The journey so far…. J Conserv Dent 2010;13:167-8.
2. Poorni S, Ramachandran S, Rooban T, Kumar PM. Contributions
of Indianconservative dentists and endodontists to the Medline
database during 1996-2009: A bibliometric analysis. J Conserv Dent
2010;13:169- 72.
3. Available from: http://icmr.nic.in/ethical_guidelines.pdf [Last accessed
on 2011 Dec 23].
4. Available from: http://www.who.int/topics/epidemiology/en/[Last
accessed on 2011 Dec 23].
5. Sackett DL. Clinical epidemiology.Am J Epidemiol 1969;89:125-8.
6. Tugwell P, Bennett KJ, Sackett DL, Haynes RB. The measurement
iterative loop: A framework for the critical appraisal of need, benefits and
costs of health interventions. J Chronic Dis1985;38:339-51.
7. Colton T. Statistics in Medicine. Boston: Little,Brown and Co.; 1974.p.
66-73.
8. Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, Haynes RB, Richardson WS.
Figure 4: Anatomy of a research study Evidence based medicine: What it is and what itisn’t. Br Med J
1996;312:71-2.
9. Sackett D, Straus S, Richardson W. Evidence-Based Medicine: How
Research studies in Endodontic and Restorative dentistry to Practice and Teach EBM. 2nd ed. London, England:Churchill
are two dimensional. The first dimension is the laboratory Livingstone;2000.
research, which provides the best evidence on material 10. Faggion CM Jr, Tu YK. Evidence-based dentistry: A model for clinical
practice. J Dent Educ 2007;71:825-31.
science and the second dimension is clinical research, which 11. Rudan I, El Arifeen S, Black RE, Campbell H. Childhood pneumonia and
provides the best evidence in dealing with the burden of diarrhoea: Setting our priorities right. Lancet Infect Dis2007;7:56-61.
illness, with efficient clinical practice. This increases the
avenues for research studies in several directions. With
an increasing requirement to publish, articles with good
clinical evidence stand a definite chance to find their place
in scientific literature. How to cite this article: Krithikadatta J. Research methodology
in Dentistry: Part I - The essentials and relevance of research. J
ACKNOWLEDGMENT Conserv Dent 2012;15:5-11.

The author would like to thank Prof. Peter Tugwell, Professor Source of Support: Nil, Conflict of Interest: None declared.

Announcement
Android App
A free application to browse and search the journal’s content is now available for Android based
mobiles and devices. The application provides “Table of Contents” of the latest issues, which
are stored on the device for future offline browsing. Internet connection is required to access the
back issues and search facility. The application is compatible with all the versions of Android. The
application can be downloaded from https://market.android.com/details?id=comm.app.medknow.
For suggestions and comments do write back to us.

Journal of Conservative Dentistry | Jan-Mar 2012 | Vol 15 | Issue 1 11

View publication stats