↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of intraoral radiography and cone-beam computed tomography for the detection of periodontal defects: an in vitro study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Oral Health, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (54th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
58 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
92 Mendeley
Title
Comparison of intraoral radiography and cone-beam computed tomography for the detection of periodontal defects: an in vitro study
Published in
BMC Oral Health, May 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12903-015-0046-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nilsun Bagis, Mehmet Eray Kolsuz, Sebnem Kursun, Kaan Orhan

Abstract

This study aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) unit with digital intraoral radiography technique for detecting periodontal defects. The study material comprised 12 dry skulls with maxilla and mandible. Artificial defects (dehiscence, tunnel, and fenestration) were created on anterior, premolar and molar teeth separately using burs. In total 14 dehiscences, 13 fenestrations, eight tunnel and 16 without periodontal defect were used in the study. These were randomly created on dry skulls. Each teeth with and without defects were images at various vertical angles using each of the following modalities: a Planmeca Promax Cone Beam CT and a Digora photostimulable phosphor plates. Specificity and sensitivity for assessing periodontal defects by each radiographic technique were calculated. Chi-square statistics were used to evaluate differences between modalities. Kappa statistics assessed the agreement between observers. Results were considered significant at P < 0.05. The kappa values for inter-observer agreement between observers ranged between 0.78 and 0.96 for the CBCT, and 0.43 and 0.72 of intraoral images. The Kappa values for detecting defects on anterior teeth was the least, following premolar and molar teeth both CBCT and intraoral imaging. CBCT has the highest sensitivity and diagnostic accuracy for detecting various periodontal defects among the radiographic modalities examined.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users 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 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 92 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 17%
Student > Bachelor 9 10%
Student > Postgraduate 6 7%
Other 5 5%
Researcher 5 5%
Other 19 21%
Unknown 32 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 43 47%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 2%
Computer Science 2 2%
Psychology 2 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 1%
Other 6 7%
Unknown 36 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 14 June 2015.
All research outputs
#13,444,755
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Oral Health
#523
of 1,567 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#120,759
of 268,867 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Oral Health
#5
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,567 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its peers.
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 268,867 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.