↓ 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

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
98 Mendeley
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.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 98 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 17%
Student > Postgraduate 9 9%
Student > Bachelor 8 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 5%
Other 4 4%
Other 16 16%
Unknown 39 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 46 47%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Unspecified 1 1%
Linguistics 1 1%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 1%
Other 3 3%
Unknown 43 44%
Attention Score in Context

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
#8,537,346
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Progress in Orthodontics
#54
of 255 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#156,636
of 445,134 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Progress in Orthodontics
#2
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 255 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 445,134 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 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 8 of them.