↓ Skip to main content

Accuracy of visual and image-based ICDAS criteria compared with a micro-CT gold standard for caries detection on occlusal surfaces

Overview of attention for article published in Brazilian Oral Research, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 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
Accuracy of visual and image-based ICDAS criteria compared with a micro-CT gold standard for caries detection on occlusal surfaces
Published in
Brazilian Oral Research, July 2018
DOI 10.1590/1807-3107bor-2018.vol32.0060
Pubmed ID
Authors

Raquel Nogueira de Carvalho, Aline Dos Santos Letieri, Thiago Isidro Vieira, Thais Maria Pires Dos Santos, Ricardo Tadeu Lopes, Aline de Almeida Neves, Luciana Pomarico

Abstract

The aim of this study was to check the in vitro accuracy of ICDAS criteria on digital images compared to visual examination for the diagnosis of occlusal caries against a micro-CT gold standard. ICDAS was scored in 40 extracted permanent molars by means of visual inspection and stereomicroscopic images. Visual examinations were performed in duplicate and at a one-week interval by three different calibrated examiners. The analysis of digital images by ICDAS criteria was also performed in duplicate, 1 month after visual examinations. The detection methods were compared by means of sensitivity, specificity, area under the curve, predictive positive and negative values, and accuracy for two different thresholds (1- sound vs. carious teeth; 2- tooth requiring operative vs. non-operative treatment). Sensitivity and accuracy values for threshold 1 in the visual ICDAS and image-based ICDAS methods were high for sensitivity (0.93 and 0.97) and for accuracy (0.83 and 0.85), but low for specificity (0.55 for both methods). Specificity values for threshold 2 were 0.77 and 0.82, while sensitivity was 0.33 and 0.28 for each method. Spearman's rank correlation coefficient was 0.53 and 0.43 (p<0.05) for visual and image-based ICDAS compared to the gold standard scores. Both visual and image-based ICDAS scores were similar to each other in terms of diagnostic accuracy when compared to the micro-CT gold standard. Low specificity for the presence of caries and sensitivity for the detection of caries requiring operative treatment were found.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 52 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 8 15%
Student > Master 8 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 8%
Researcher 3 6%
Other 2 4%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 21 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 52%
Computer Science 4 8%
Unspecified 1 2%
Physics and Astronomy 1 2%
Psychology 1 2%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 18 35%
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 12 July 2018.
All research outputs
#22,767,715
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from Brazilian Oral Research
#384
of 509 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#297,553
of 339,365 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Brazilian Oral Research
#4
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 339,365 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 2 of them.