The aim of this study was to assess whether auto-calibrating medical-grade monitors perform better than off-the-shelf monitors and tablet computers in detecting artificial incipient and recurrent caries-like lesions.
Sixty extracted teeth (30 premolars and 30 molars) were selected. All molars received class II amalgam and composite restorations. A 7-mm2 area on the crowns of half of the teeth was demineralized. Phantoms consisting of 4 teeth were created. Three observers using a 5-point scale evaluated digital periapical radiographs for the presence of caries on 5 displays: 2 autocalibrating medical-grade monitors, 2 tablets, and 1 off-the-shelf monitor. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and receiver operating curve data were calculated and verified through analysis of variance and Tukey tests. Observer agreements were assessed using Cohen's κ test.
Intraobserver agreement ranged from 0.347 to 0.612 (molars) and 0.617 to 0.811 (premolars). Interobserver agreement ranged from 0.239 to 0.559 (molars) and 0.657 to 0.858 (premolars). The performances of tablets and the off-the-shelf monitor were similar to medical monitors when the same tooth groups were compared. Medical-grade monitors presented fewer statistically significant differences when different lesions where compared within the same display and restorative material.
Evaluations of similar lesions were not significantly different among the 3 types of displays. However, the autocalibrating medical-grade monitors performed better when incipient and recurrent lesions were compared.
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science
1
3%
Computer Science
1
3%
Unknown
19
53%
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 26 July 2018.
All research outputs
#15,891,207
of 27,391,359 outputs
Outputs from Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology and Oral Radiology
#1,608
of 2,678 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#168,240
of 341,335 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology and Oral Radiology
#7
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,391,359 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,678 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 341,335 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 48 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
