↓ Skip to main content

Detection and monitoring of early caries lesions: a review

Overview of attention for article published in European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
51 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
94 Mendeley
Title
Detection and monitoring of early caries lesions: a review
Published in
European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry, October 2015
DOI 10.1007/s40368-015-0208-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

I. A. Pretty, K. R. Ekstrand

Abstract

To review the current evidence base of detecting and monitoring early carious lesions in children and adolescents and a rationale proposed to ensure that such lesions are identified and appropriately managed. The systematic literature search identified initially a review by Gomez and co-workers from 2013 and this still represents the current state of the science in relation to caries detection and monitoring. The review described among others, visible detection systems, image-based detection systems and point-measurement approaches. The current evidence base suggests that while there are numerous devices or technology-enabled detection systems, the use of a careful, methodical visual inspection of clean, dry teeth, supplemented where indicated by radiographic views, remains the standard of care in caries detection and diagnostics. Further, it is possible by means of existing visible and radiographical systems to monitor lesions over time. Using low-cost intra-oral cameras facilitates the recording of lesion appearance in the patient record and may be of significant benefit in monitoring early lesions over time following their detection. This benefit extends to the clinician and the patient for whom it may be a useful educational and motivational tool. Recommendations are presented that can be adopted and adapted to local circumstances and that are both substantiated by evidence and promote a clear, simple and consistent approach to caries detection, diagnosis and monitoring in children and adolescents. The diagnoses (initial, active; moderate, active and extensive, active) are linked to appropriate management options within primary care.

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 94 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 93 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 10%
Student > Bachelor 8 9%
Professor 7 7%
Other 18 19%
Unknown 29 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 52 55%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 1%
Computer Science 1 1%
Linguistics 1 1%
Other 8 9%
Unknown 29 31%
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 02 November 2015.
All research outputs
#18,429,829
of 22,831,537 outputs
Outputs from European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry
#206
of 281 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#204,931
of 284,653 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry
#6
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,831,537 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 281 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 284,653 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.