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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Detection of vertical root fractures in endodontically treated teeth in the absence and in the presence of metal post by cone-beam computed tomography
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Oral Health, April 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12903-016-0207-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Rebeca Ferraz de Menezes, Natália Costa de Araújo, Joedy Maria Costa Santa Rosa, Vanda Sanderana Macêdo Carneiro, Alexandrino Pereira dos Santos Neto, Vânio Costa, Lara Marques Moreno, Jéssica Meirinhos Miranda, Diana Santana de Albuquerque, Mônica Albuquerque, Roberto Alves dos Santos, Marleny Elizabeth Márquez de Martínez Gerbi |
| Abstract |
Aim of this study was to investigate the influence of gutta-percha and metallic posts on the efficiency of Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) in diagnosing Vertical Root Fracture (VRF). Forty-eight teeth were divided into 3 experimental and 3 control groups. The teeth of the first experimental group and the first control group received neither gutta-percha nor metal posts. The teeth of the second experimental group and the second control group were filled with gutta-percha, and the teeth of the third experimental group and the third control group were filled with the metal posts. The teeth of the experimental groups were artificially fractured. The teeth were evaluated through images taken by a Prexion scanner with a 0.1 mm resolution. Fisher's exact test was used to measure the following values: sensitivity, false negative, specificity, false positive and accuracy for the VRF detection through the scanner. Three observers calibrated and blinded to the protocol evaluated the images. The inter-observer Kappa coefficient was 0.83. The presence of posts and gutta-percha reduced the sensitivity and the accuracy in detecting the VRF. Regarding to the sensitivity (p = 0.837, p = 0.304, p = 0.837 for evaluator 1, 2 and 3, respectively) and specificity (p = 0.162, p = 0.056, p = 0.062 for evaluator 1, 2 and 3, respectively), Fisher's exact test showed no statistically significant difference among the evaluated groups. However, a significant difference was observed in relation to the accuracy in the results of evaluator 2 (p = 0.03), which showed a much lower accuracy for the post group (50 %) than for the Nonfilled group (93.8 %). The Prexion tomograph was precise in detecting vertical root fractures and the CBCT diagnostic ability was not influenced by the presence of posts or gutta-percha. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Chile | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 63 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 13 | 21% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 4 | 6% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 11 | 17% |
| Unknown | 19 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 32 | 51% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 2% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 2% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 2% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 5% |
| Unknown | 24 | 38% |
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 15 September 2017.
All research outputs
#18,572,036
of 23,002,898 outputs
Outputs from BMC Oral Health
#1,011
of 1,489 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#220,684
of 301,102 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Oral Health
#18
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,002,898 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 1,489 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 301,102 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.