↓ Skip to main content

Impact of cone-beam computed tomography on implant planning and on prediction of implant size

Overview of attention for article published in Brazilian Oral Research, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
60 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
Impact of cone-beam computed tomography on implant planning and on prediction of implant size
Published in
Brazilian Oral Research, January 2013
DOI 10.1590/s1806-83242013005000029
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pedroso, Ludmila Assuncao de Mello, Garcia, Robson Rodrigues, Leles, Jose Luiz Rodrigues, Leles, Claudio Rodrigues, Silva, Maria Alves Garcia Santos, Pedroso, Ludmila Assuncao de Mello, Garcia, Robson Rodrigues, Leles, Jose Luiz Rodrigues, Leles, Claudio Rodrigues, Silva, Maria Alves Garcia Santos

Abstract

The aim was to investigate the impact of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) on implant planning and on prediction of final implant size. Consecutive patients referred for implant treatment were submitted to clinical examination, panoramic (PAN) radiography and a CBCT exam. Initial planning of implant length and width was assessed based on clinical and PAN exams, and final planning, on CBCT exam to complement diagnosis. The actual dimensions of the implants placed during surgery were compared with those obtained during initial and final planning, using the McNemmar test (p < 0.05). The final sample comprised 95 implants in 27 patients, distributed over the maxilla and mandible. Agreement in implant length was 50.5% between initial and final planning, and correct prediction of the actual implant length was 40.0% and 69.5%, using PAN and CBCT exams, respectively. Agreement in implant width assessment ranged from 69.5% to 73.7%. A paired comparison of the frequency of changes between initial or final planning and implant placement (McNemmar test) showed greater frequency of changes in initial planning for implant length (p < 0.001), but not for implant width (p = 0.850). The frequency of changes was not influenced by implant location at any stage of implant planning (chi-square test, p > 0.05). It was concluded that CBCT improves the ability of predicting the actual implant length and reduces inaccuracy in surgical dental implant planning.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 60 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 25%
Student > Postgraduate 9 15%
Student > Bachelor 6 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Other 10 17%
Unknown 11 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 36 60%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Chemical Engineering 1 2%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 12 20%

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 23 December 2013.
All research outputs
#3,894,651
of 4,655,094 outputs
Outputs from Brazilian Oral Research
#1
of 1 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#99,024
of 122,133 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Brazilian Oral Research
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 4,655,094 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 1 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 0.0. This one scored the same or higher as 0 of them.
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 122,133 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 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them