↓ Skip to main content

A comparative study of cone beam computed tomography and conventional radiography in diagnosing the extent of root resorptions

Overview of attention for article published in Progress in Orthodontics, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#19 of 178)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 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
A comparative study of cone beam computed tomography and conventional radiography in diagnosing the extent of root resorptions
Published in
Progress in Orthodontics, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s40510-017-0191-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elham Alamadi, Hisham Alhazmi, Ken Hansen, Ted Lundgren, Julia Naoumova

Abstract

Root resorptions are assessed and diagnosed using different radiographical techniques. A comparison of the ability to assess resorptions on two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) radiographs is, hitherto, lacking. The aims of this study were to evaluate the accuracy of 2D (periapical radiographs, PA and panoramic radiograph, PAN) and 3D (cone beam computed tomography, CBCT) radiographic techniques in measuring slanted root resorptions compared to the true resorptions, a histological gold standard, in addition to a comparison of all the radiographic techniques to each other. Radiographs (CBCT, PA, and PAN), in addition to histological sections, of extracted deciduous canines from thirty-four patients were analyzed. Linear measurements of the most and least resorbed side of the root, i.e., "slanted" resorptions, were measured using an analyzing software (Facad ®). For classification of slanted root resorptions, a modified Malmgren index was used. PAN underestimated the root length on both the least and most resorbed side. Small resorptions, i.e., low modified Malmgren scores, were more difficult to record and were only assessed accurately using CBCT. The root resorption scores were underestimated using PA and PAN. In assessment of linear measures, PAN differed significantly from both CBCT and PA. CBCT is the most accurate technique when measuring and scoring slanted root resorptions.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters 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 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 51 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 31%
Student > Postgraduate 7 14%
Other 3 6%
Student > Bachelor 3 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 4%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 14 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 53%
Unspecified 6 12%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 2%
Social Sciences 1 2%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 2%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 15 29%

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 27 November 2017.
All research outputs
#3,490,523
of 12,196,902 outputs
Outputs from Progress in Orthodontics
#19
of 178 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#116,008
of 338,338 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Progress in Orthodontics
#2
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,196,902 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 178 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 338,338 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 64% of its contemporaries.
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 has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.