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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Validation of cone-beam computed tomography as a predictor of osteoporosis using the Klemetti classification
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Brazilian Oral Research, May 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1590/1807-3107bor-2016.vol30.0073 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Maria Beatriz Carrazzone Cal Alonso, Taruska Ventorini Vasconcelos, Luciana Jácome Lopes, Plauto Christopher Aranha Watanabe, Deborah Queiroz Freitas |
| Abstract |
This study aimed at evaluating the validity of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) for assessing mandibular bone quality using the Klemetti classification. The morphology of the endosteal mandibular cortex of 30 (60 hemi-mandibles) postmenopausal women between the ages of 45 and 80 years was evaluated based on the Klemetti classification in panoramic radiographs used as reference images. Afterwards, panoramic reconstruction and cross-sectional slices of CBCT examinations of these patients were analyzed and categorized according to the same classification. All the images were assessed by two oral radiologists. The McNemar-Bowker test compared the agreement between the CBCT images and the reference images. No differences were found between the diagnostic results based on panoramic radiography and panoramic reconstruction. However, the mean scores for the cross-sectional evaluation were higher, and the results, statistically different from the others. Based on the disagreement found between the panoramic radiographs and the CBCT cross-sectional slices, the Klemetti classification is not an adequate means of assessing bone quality with CBCT. On the other hand, the higher values found for the cross-sectional slices could be associated with better visibility on the CBCT images. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Latvia | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 60 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 11 | 18% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 8 | 13% |
| Unknown | 20 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 29 | 48% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 3% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 1 | 2% |
| Mathematics | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 3% |
| Unknown | 24 | 39% |
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 05 June 2016.
All research outputs
#20,656,161
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Brazilian Oral Research
#296
of 509 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#269,881
of 353,676 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Brazilian Oral Research
#2
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 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 353,676 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.