↓ Skip to main content

Precision of identifying cephalometric landmarks with cone beam computed tomography in vivo

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Orthodontics, March 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
79 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Precision of identifying cephalometric landmarks with cone beam computed tomography in vivo
Published in
European Journal of Orthodontics, March 2011
DOI 10.1093/ejo/cjr050
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bassam Hassan, Peter Nijkamp, Hans Verheij, Jamshed Tairie, Christian Vink, Paul van der Stelt, Herman van Beek

Abstract

The study aims were to assess the precision and time required to conduct cephalometric analysis with cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) in vivo on both three-dimensional (3D) surface models and multi-planar reformations (MPR) images. Datasets from 10 patients scanned with CBCT were used to create two types of images: 1. axial, coronal, and sagittal MPR images and 2. 3D surface models. Eleven observers identified 22 cephalometric landmarks on 3D surface models first and then using 3D in combination with MPR images twice independently. Tracing time was recorded in both methods. Precision was defined as the absolute difference between an observer's repeated measurements and the mean of all measurements per landmark. Inter- and intra-observer agreements were defined as the absolute difference of the observers' measurements from each other and from their repeated measurements averaged over all landmarks, respectively. The precision of measurements ranged between 0.29 ± 0.17 and 2.82 ± 7.53. Adding MPR alongside, 3D surfaces improved the precision of tracing for 15 of 22 of the landmark but it took on average twice as much time. Mean time required to trace one patient was 6:03 ± 2:48 and 10:41 ± 4:01 minutes for 3D and 3D + MPR, respectively (P = 0.0001).

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 1%
Unknown 78 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 18%
Student > Postgraduate 8 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 8%
Student > Bachelor 4 5%
Other 14 18%
Unknown 16 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 52 66%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Sports and Recreations 2 3%
Environmental Science 1 1%
Unspecified 1 1%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 17 22%
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 10 January 2018.
All research outputs
#7,962,021
of 23,957,285 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Orthodontics
#224
of 871 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,414
of 111,739 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Orthodontics
#6
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,957,285 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 871 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 111,739 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.