↓ Skip to main content

Quantitative Comparison of Mathematical Models to Measure Surface Area of Canine Teeth Prepared to Receive Full Veneer Crowns in Dogs

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Veterinary Science, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 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
Quantitative Comparison of Mathematical Models to Measure Surface Area of Canine Teeth Prepared to Receive Full Veneer Crowns in Dogs
Published in
Frontiers in Veterinary Science, September 2015
DOI 10.3389/fvets.2015.00031
Pubmed ID
Authors

Caitlyn J. Collins, Scott Joseph Hetzel, Sarah Siverling, Heidi-Lynn Ploeg, Jason W. Soukup

Abstract

This study was performed in order to determine if mathematical modeling of the canine teeth in dogs could be utilized to provide an accurate and reliable estimation of crown surface area that could be used in both a research and a clinical setting. Actual surface area (aSA) calculations for 32 stone dies of clinical crown preparations were acquired utilizing a tridimensional (3D) laser scanner and 3D computer-aided design and manufacturing (CAD/CAM) software applications. These calculations were used as a control. Seventeen unique mathematical models from eight geometric shapes were used to calculate estimated surface area (eSA) of each stone die. Linear association and agreement between eSA and aSA calculations were assessed with multiple statistical methods. All methods of eSA showed a significant linear association with aSA. Five of the mathematical models [right elliptical frustum (H3), right elliptical cone (G3), right pyramidal cone (A3), right circular frustum (F2), and right circular cone (E1)] were superior to the other 12 models. The H3 mathematical model based on the right elliptical frustum provided the most accurate estimate of crown surface area of dog teeth. However, H3 requires the use of laser scans and a 3D CAD software program. As a result, this model would be recommended for research applications. The E1 mathematical model was similar in accuracy to H3 and, given it requires only two measurements and a comparatively simple equation for calculation, this method would be recommended for clinical chair-side use.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 5 17%
Researcher 4 14%
Other 3 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 7%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 9 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 14 48%
Engineering 3 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 10%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Unknown 8 28%
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 08 September 2015.
All research outputs
#18,425,370
of 22,826,360 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Veterinary Science
#4,117
of 6,200 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#193,044
of 267,706 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Veterinary Science
#17
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,826,360 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,200 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 267,706 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.