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 |
Finish line distinctness and accuracy in 7 intraoral scanners versus conventional impression: an in vitro descriptive comparison
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Oral Health, February 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12903-018-0489-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Robert Nedelcu, Pontus Olsson, Ingela Nyström, Andreas Thor |
| Abstract |
Several studies have evaluated accuracy of intraoral scanners (IOS), but data is lacking regarding variations between IOS systems in the depiction of the critical finish line and the finish line accuracy. The aim of this study was to analyze the level of finish line distinctness (FLD), and finish line accuracy (FLA), in 7 intraoral scanners (IOS) and one conventional impression (IMPR). Furthermore, to assess parameters of resolution, tessellation, topography, and color. A dental model with a crown preparation including supra and subgingival finish line was reference-scanned with an industrial scanner (ATOS), and scanned with seven IOS: 3M, CS3500 and CS3600, DWIO, Omnicam, Planscan and Trios. An IMPR was taken and poured, and the model was scanned with a laboratory scanner. The ATOS scan was cropped at finish line and best-fit aligned for 3D Compare Analysis (Geomagic). Accuracy was visualized, and descriptive analysis was performed. All IOS, except Planscan, had comparable overall accuracy, however, FLD and FLA varied substantially. Trios presented the highest FLD, and with CS3600, the highest FLA. 3M, and DWIO had low overall FLD and low FLA in subgingival areas, whilst Planscan had overall low FLD and FLA, as well as lower general accuracy. IMPR presented high FLD, except in subgingival areas, and high FLA. Trios had the highest resolution by factor 1.6 to 3.1 among IOS, followed by IMPR, DWIO, Omnicam, CS3500, 3M, CS3600 and Planscan. Tessellation was found to be non-uniform except in 3M and DWIO. Topographic variation was found for 3M and Trios, with deviations below +/- 25 μm for Trios. Inclusion of color enhanced the identification of the finish line in Trios, Omnicam and CS3600, but not in Planscan. There were sizeable variations between IOS with both higher and lower FLD and FLA than IMPR. High FLD was more related to high localized finish line resolution and non-uniform tessellation, than to high overall resolution. Topography variations were low. Color improved finish line identification in some IOS. It is imperative that clinicians critically evaluate the digital impression, being aware of varying technical limitations among IOS, in particular when challenging subgingival conditions apply. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 212 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 212 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 38 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 23 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 17 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 11 | 5% |
| Other | 39 | 18% |
| Unknown | 72 | 34% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 108 | 51% |
| Engineering | 6 | 3% |
| Unspecified | 4 | 2% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 1% |
| Computer Science | 2 | <1% |
| Other | 9 | 4% |
| Unknown | 80 | 38% |
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 28 September 2020.
All research outputs
#14,901,226
of 25,084,886 outputs
Outputs from BMC Oral Health
#641
of 1,737 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#177,040
of 336,113 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Oral Health
#17
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,084,886 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,737 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 336,113 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.