↓ Skip to main content

Performance of cone beam computed tomography and conventional intraoral radiographs in detecting interproximal alveolar bone lesions: a study in pig mandibles

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Oral Health, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 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
Performance of cone beam computed tomography and conventional intraoral radiographs in detecting interproximal alveolar bone lesions: a study in pig mandibles
Published in
BMC Oral Health, June 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12903-017-0390-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vanessa Camillo Almeida, Lucas Rodrigues Pinheiro, Fernanda Cristina Sales Salineiro, Fausto Medeiros Mendes, João Batista César Neto, Marcelo Gusmão Paraíso Cavalcanti, Cláudio Mendes Pannuti

Abstract

Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) has been largely used in dentistry. Nevertheless, there is lack of evidence regarding CBCT accuracy in the diagnosis of early periodontal lesions as well as the correlation between accuracy and lesion size. The aim of this study was to evaluate accuracy of CBCT and conventional intraoral radiographs in detecting different-sized interproximal bone lesions created in pig mandibles. The hypothesis was that CBCT accuracy would be superior to radiographs in detecting incipient bone lesions. Twenty swine dry mandibles were used, totalizing 80 experimental sites. Four groups were created according to exposure time to perchloric acid 70-72%: controls (no exposure), 2-hour exposure, 4-hour exposure, and 6-hour exposure. Standardized CBCT and conventional intraoral radiographs were taken and analyzed by two trained radiologists. The presence of lesions in the dry mandible was considered the gold standard. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy in detecting different-sized bone lesions were calculated for CBCT and intraoral radiographs. Accuracy of CBCT ranged from 0.762 to 0.825 and accuracy of periapical radiography ranged from 0.700 to 0.813, according to examiner and time of acid exposure. Inter-examiner agreement varied from slight to fair, whereas intra-examiner agreement varied from moderate to substantial. CBCT performance was not superior to that provided by conventional intraoral radiographs in the detection of interproximal bone loss.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users 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 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 39 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 13%
Student > Bachelor 5 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Researcher 3 8%
Other 7 18%
Unknown 10 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 59%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 5%
Unknown 12 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 04 July 2018.
All research outputs
#14,352,337
of 22,982,639 outputs
Outputs from BMC Oral Health
#634
of 1,488 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#176,716
of 316,843 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Oral Health
#12
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,982,639 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,488 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its peers.
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 316,843 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.