↓ Skip to main content

Digital panoramic radiography for diagnosis of the temporomandibular joint: CBCT as the gold standard

Overview of attention for article published in Brazilian Oral Research, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
87 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
Digital panoramic radiography for diagnosis of the temporomandibular joint: CBCT as the gold standard
Published in
Brazilian Oral Research, January 2015
DOI 10.1590/1807-3107bor-2015.vol29.0120
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniela Brait Silva Ladeira, Adriana Dibo da Cruz, Solange Maria de Almeida

Abstract

Three-dimensional imaging modalities have been reported to be more accurate than panoramic radiographs (PR) for the assessment of bone components of the temporomandibular joint (TMJ). No exact prior information is available that demonstrates which specific limitations occur in terms of TMJ diagnosis when using PR for this purpose. This study aimed to assess the clinical validity of digital panoramic radiography (DPR) when diagnosing morphological disorders of the TMJ using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images as the gold standard. A sample composed of TMJ images (N = 848), including 212 DPR and 212 CBCT images obtained from the same patient, was used to assess any morphological changes in the TMJ. Four appraisers diagnosed all of the DPR images, whereas the CBCT images were used to establish the gold standard. The reliability of each appraiser's response pattern was analyzed using the Kappa test (κ), and diagnostic tests were performed to assess each appraiser's performance using a significance level setting of 5% (α = 0.05). Reliability of each appraiser's response pattern compared to the gold standard ranged from a slight-to-moderate agreement (0.18 ≤ κ ≤ 0.45); and among the different appraisers, the response pattern showed a fair agreement (0.22 ≤ κ ≤ 0.39). Diagnostic tests showed a wide range among the different possible morphological changes diagnosed. DPR does not have validity when diagnosing morphological changes in the TMJ; it underestimates the radiological findings with higher prevalence, and thus, it cannot be used effectively as a diagnostic tool for bone components within this region.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 1%
Unknown 86 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 10%
Student > Master 9 10%
Student > Bachelor 9 10%
Researcher 7 8%
Other 5 6%
Other 19 22%
Unknown 29 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 40 46%
Neuroscience 2 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Computer Science 2 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 1%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 35 40%
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 20 February 2016.
All research outputs
#20,656,820
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Brazilian Oral Research
#296
of 509 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#266,644
of 359,538 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Brazilian Oral Research
#10
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 509 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.3. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 359,538 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.