↓ Skip to main content

Performance of laser fluorescence devices, visual and radiographic examination for the detection of occlusal caries in primary molars

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Oral Investigations, May 2010
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
53 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 Mendeley
Title
Performance of laser fluorescence devices, visual and radiographic examination for the detection of occlusal caries in primary molars
Published in
Clinical Oral Investigations, May 2010
DOI 10.1007/s00784-010-0427-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Klaus W. Neuhaus, Jonas Almeida Rodrigues, Isabel Hug, Herman Stich, Adrian Lussi

Abstract

The aim of this in vitro study was to compare the performance of two laser fluorescence devices (LF, LFpen), conventional visual criteria (VE), ICDAS and radiographic examination on occlusal surfaces of primary teeth. Thirty-seven primary human molars were selected from a pool of extracted teeth, which were stored frozen at -20 °C until use. Teeth were assessed twice by two experienced examiners using laser fluorescence devices (LF and LFpen), conventional visual criteria, ICDAS and bitewing radiographs, with a 2-week interval between measurements. After measurement, the teeth were histologically prepared and assessed for caries extension. The highest sensitivity was observed for ICDAS at D(1) and D(3) thresholds, with no statistically significant difference when compared to the LF devices, except at the D(3) threshold. Bitewing radiographs presented the lowest values of sensitivity. Specificity at D(1) was higher for LFpen (0.90) and for VE at D(3) (0.94). When VE was combined with LFpen the post-test probabilities were the highest (94.0% and 89.2% at D(1) and D(3) thresholds, respectively). High values were observed for the combination of ICDAS and LFpen (92.0% and 80.0%, respectively). LF and LFpen showed the highest values of ICC for interexaminer reproducibility. However, regarding ICDAS, BW and VE, intraexaminer reproducibility was not the same for the two examiners. After primary visual inspection using ICDAS or not, the use of LFpen may aid in the detection of occlusal caries in primary teeth. Bitewing radiographs may be indicated only for approximal caries detection.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 56 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 19%
Student > Master 8 14%
Researcher 6 10%
Lecturer 4 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 5%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 20 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 52%
Computer Science 2 3%
Physics and Astronomy 1 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Social Sciences 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 22 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 October 2012.
All research outputs
#15,255,201
of 22,684,168 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Oral Investigations
#600
of 1,389 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#77,625
of 95,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Oral Investigations
#5
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,684,168 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,389 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 95,757 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.