The aim of this in-vitro study was to evaluate the influence of cone-beam computed tomography scans on the diagnosis of chemically simulated external root resorption.
One hundred extracted anterior teeth were selected. Subsurface demineralization was induced on a limited area of the apical third of the root of 49 teeth. Each tooth was placed in an empty socket of a partially edentulous dry mandible. Cone-beam computed tomography images were obtained according to 3 protocols: (1) half scan, 0.40-mm voxel size; (2) full scan, 0.40-mm voxel size; and (3) full scan, 0.125-mm voxel size. Three observers evaluated the images. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and area under the curve were compared with the Cochran Q and Mann-Whitney U tests.
Protocol 3 had the highest sensitivity (81.63%), accuracy (80.67%), and area under the curve (0.807). There were statistically significant differences between protocol 3 and the other 2 protocols (P <0.001). The specificity of protocol 1 (84.97%) was greater than that of protocols 2 (69.93%) and 3 (79.74%); however, a statistically significant difference was found only between protocols 1 and 2 (P = 0.005).
A more dedicated, high-resolution scan should be acquired when one intends to investigate the early stage of external root resorption during orthodontic treatment. However, this does not imply that all orthodontic patients should be subjected to high-dose cone-beam computed tomography scans.
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 31 May 2017.
All research outputs
#28,611,663
of 34,372,222 outputs
Outputs from American Journal of Orthodontics & Dentofacial Orthopedics
#1,763
of 2,195 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#292,409
of 364,628 outputs
Outputs of similar age from American Journal of Orthodontics & Dentofacial Orthopedics
#11
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,372,222 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,195 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% 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 364,628 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
