↓ Skip to main content

Comparing Intraoral Radiography and Computed Tomography for Detecting Radiographic Signs of Periodontitis and Endodontic Disease in Dogs: An Agreement Study

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Veterinary Science, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 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
Comparing Intraoral Radiography and Computed Tomography for Detecting Radiographic Signs of Periodontitis and Endodontic Disease in Dogs: An Agreement Study
Published in
Frontiers in Veterinary Science, August 2016
DOI 10.3389/fvets.2016.00068
Pubmed ID
Authors

Robert D. Campbell, Santiago Peralta, Nadine Fiani, Peter V. Scrivani

Abstract

To determine whether computed tomography (CT) and intraoral radiography are interchangeable for detecting signs of periodontitis and endodontic disease in dogs. An agreement study was performed using 40 dogs that previously underwent intraoral radiography and CT during the same anesthetic episode. Images of each tooth were examined by two blinded observers for signs of periodontitis and/or endodontic disease. Agreement between imaging modalities and between observers was assessed using the Kappa statistic. Agreement between modalities for detecting periodontitis in the maxillae ranged from poor to very good (κ 0.07-1.00) with 16/20 (80%) of the teeth having a score of moderate or better (κ ≥ 0.41). Agreement between modalities for detecting signs consistent with periodontitis in the mandibles ranged from poor to very good (κ 0.01-1.00) with 10/22 (45%) of the teeth having a score of good or better (κ ≥ 0.61); 50% of the disagreement was present in the incisors. Agreement between modalities for detecting signs consistent with endodontic disease in the whole mouth ranged from fair to very good (κ 0.21-1.00) with 30/42 (71%) of the teeth having a score of moderate or better (κ ≥ 0.41). Agreement between observers evaluating intraoral radiology ranged from poor to very good (κ 0.05-1) for detecting signs consistent with periodontitis and from fair to very good (κ 0.36-1) for detecting signs consistent with endodontic disease, in the whole mouth. Agreement between observers evaluating CT ranged from fair to very good (κ 0.35-1) for detecting signs consistent with periodontitis and from fair to very good (κ 0.36-1) for detecting signs consistent with endodontic disease, in the whole mouth. Performing both CT and intraoral radiography may be unnecessary to detect signs consistent with periodontitis and endodontic disease in dogs based on the amount of agreement between modalities and observers when CT images are acquired and reconstructed in 0.5 or 1 mm slice thickness, except for diagnosing periodontitis in the mandibular incisors.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 49 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 11 22%
Researcher 6 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 8%
Student > Postgraduate 4 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 4%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 16 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 23 47%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 12%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 14 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 09 August 2022.
All research outputs
#3,162,846
of 23,056,273 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Veterinary Science
#559
of 6,352 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,546
of 338,168 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Veterinary Science
#7
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,056,273 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,352 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 338,168 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.