This paper concentrates on the primary theme of Smoking and its effects on periodontal health in which you have to explain and evaluate its intricate aspects in detail. In addition to this, this paper has been reviewed and purchased by most of the students hence; it has been rated 4.8 points on the scale of 5 points. Besides, the price of this paper starts from £ 40. For more details and full access to the paper, please refer to the site.
Topic: Smoking and its effects on periodontal health
.According to mention topic the focus of the study is to evaluate smoking effects and its relationship with Periodontal health but in literature review and methodology other parameters also discuss as the topic suggest only the rationale of smoking on periodontium should be restricted to the topic but other parameter like pan, chalia and guttka also disscuss without any justification.
Analysis done without specific test applied so data analysis should be revised and formulate results again according to analyzed data and rewrite discussion and conclusion.
Elaborate the �introduction� of your manuscript makes it lengthy.
Draw a table of your variables in Methodology, and mentioned rural area. Your cross-sectional study�s duration. Also add SPSS analysis sheet or table/s as supplementary material.
Explain your results with Pie Chart. Elaborate the �Conclusion� according to your results.
It is a very common topic, the studies chosen for the literature are old and there is no new literature elaborating on the topic.The article is not well formatted.
Other Specific Criticisms:
1) For correct Reference style (Please view the journal�s website at http://njhsciences.com/guidelines-for-author/ for Instructions to authors and change the references accordingly i.e. Vancouver Style).
2) Typographical & Grammatical errors (Kindly correct the manuscript from any native English speaker).
Current literature has not been reviewed, majority are old articles. Result should be shown in article in form of table, for better understanding. Result has not been discussed clearly in discussion part.
Author has described literature in discussion, but hasn�t discussed associations clearly.