↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of Cone-Beam Computed Tomography and Intraoral Radiography in Detection of Recurrent Caries under Composite Restorations

Overview of attention for article published in Brazilian Dental Journal, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
54 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
Comparison of Cone-Beam Computed Tomography and Intraoral Radiography in Detection of Recurrent Caries under Composite Restorations
Published in
Brazilian Dental Journal, February 2017
DOI 10.1590/0103-6440201701248
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shahin Kasraei, Abbas Shokri, Jalal Poorolajal, Samira Khajeh, Hamid Rahmani

Abstract

Secondary caries is the most common cause of dental restoration failures. This study aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of conventional and digital intraoral radiography and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) for detection of recurrent caries around composite restorations. mesio-occluso-distal (MOD) cavities were prepared using bur on 45 extracted sound human molar teeth. The teeth were divided into 3 groups. In the control group, cavities were restored with composite resin after etching and bonding (n=15). In Group 2, 500-μm thick wax was placed over the buccal, lingual and gingival walls and the cavities were restored with composite resin. Group 3 specimens were subjected to pH cycling and artificial caries were created on the buccal, lingual and gingival walls. The cavities were restored with composite. Conventional and digital photo-stimulable phosphor (PSP; Optime) radiographs and two CBCTs images (NewTom 3G and Cranex 3D) were obtained from them. Presence or absence of caries in the cavity walls was assessed on these images. Data were analyzed using Kappa statistic. The diagnostic accuracy of CBCT was significantly higher than that of digital and conventional intraoral radiography (p<0.05). The accuracy was 0.83, 0.78, 0.55 and 0.49 for CBCT Cranex 3D, CBCT NewTom 3G, conventional and digital intraoral radiography, respectively. CBCT has a higher diagnostic accuracy than digital and conventional intraoral radiography for detection of secondary caries around composite restorations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 54 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 15%
Student > Bachelor 5 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 7%
Student > Postgraduate 2 4%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 24 44%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 50%
Unknown 27 50%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 17 January 2018.
All research outputs
#16,051,091
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Brazilian Dental Journal
#93
of 284 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#243,356
of 424,972 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Brazilian Dental Journal
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 284 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 424,972 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them