↓ Skip to main content

Reliability and validity of intraoral and extraoral scanners

Overview of attention for article published in Progress in Orthodontics, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
112 Mendeley
Title
Reliability and validity of intraoral and extraoral scanners
Published in
Progress in Orthodontics, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s40510-015-0108-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Helder B. Jacob, Graydon D. Wyatt, Peter H. Buschang

Abstract

This study evaluated the reliability and validity of one extraoral [Ortho Insight 3D™ (Motionview Software, Hixson, TN/USA)] and two intraoral [ITero™ (Align Technologies, San Jose, CA/USA) and Lythos™ (Ormco Corp., Orange, CA/USA)] scanners. Fifteen dry human mandibles were scanned twice with each of the scanners, and digital models were generated. Five measurements were made on the dry mandibles and on each of the generated models, including intermolar width, intercanine width, posterior arch length, premolar crown diameter, and canine height. Systematic and random errors were evaluated based on replicate analyses. Differences were assessed using paired Student's t tests. Replicate analyses showed statistically significant systematic errors for only one measure (intermolar width measured from Ortho Insight 3D scans). Measurements taken from all three scanners were highly reliable, with intraclass correlations ranging from .926 to .999. Method errors were all less than 0.25 mm (averaged ≈0.12 mm). Posterior arch length and canine height were significantly smaller when measured on the Ortho Insight 3D scans than when measured on the dry mandibles and significantly smaller than when measured from the ITero and Lythos models. While all three scanners produced reliable measures, Ortho Insight 3D systematically underestimated arch length and canine height.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 112 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 111 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 9%
Researcher 8 7%
Student > Postgraduate 7 6%
Other 20 18%
Unknown 33 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 66 59%
Unspecified 2 2%
Philosophy 1 <1%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 <1%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 <1%
Other 2 2%
Unknown 39 35%

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 30 October 2015.
All research outputs
#14,827,682
of 22,831,537 outputs
Outputs from Progress in Orthodontics
#95
of 234 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#157,509
of 284,522 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Progress in Orthodontics
#5
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,831,537 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 234 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 284,522 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 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.