↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of occlusal caries detection using the ICDAS criteria on extracted teeth or their photographs

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Oral Health, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
59 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
Comparison of occlusal caries detection using the ICDAS criteria on extracted teeth or their photographs
Published in
BMC Oral Health, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12903-016-0291-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

P. Bottenberg, W. Jacquet, C. Behrens, V. Stachniss, A. Jablonski-Momeni

Abstract

Using photographs of occlusal surfaces instead of extracted teeth for the detection of caries can be useful in multicenter studies or education. Using a panel of observers, ICDAS scores on teeth or photographs were evaluated against the histological gold standard. The hypothesis was that both outcomes were equivalent. Four examiners with different experience in ICDAS scored photographs of occlusal surfaces of 100 extracted teeth on a monitor using ICDAS criteria. Two of the examiners had previously scored extracted teeth prior to photography. Digital images of histological sections of the teeth were observed by all examiners and consensus scores were given for each investigation site (gold standard). Kappa statistics and Spearman correlation coefficients as well as repeated measure ANOVA were performed. ROC curves were constructed for each examiner and the areas under the ROC-curves (AUC) of both scoring techniques (extracted teeth, digital images) were compared (α = 0.05). Intra- and inter-rater kappa for ICDAS on teeth were 0.81-0.94 and on photographs 0.54-0.88, respectively. Correlation with histology was 0.58- 0.61 for the teeth and 0.50-0.62 for the photographs. AUC of ICDAS scores of extracted teeth (mean 0.89) were slightly higher than those for photographs (mean 0.84). However, both AUC values were not statistically significant (p = 0.38). Using photographs to assess occlusal surfaces with the ICDAS criteria was not statistically different from scoring the extracted teeth.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 59 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 19%
Student > Bachelor 8 14%
Researcher 5 8%
Student > Postgraduate 3 5%
Professor 3 5%
Other 10 17%
Unknown 19 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 38 64%
Computer Science 1 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Social Sciences 1 2%
Engineering 1 2%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 17 29%
Attention Score in Context

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 29 March 2018.
All research outputs
#17,937,475
of 23,031,582 outputs
Outputs from BMC Oral Health
#961
of 1,491 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#242,786
of 335,591 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Oral Health
#19
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,031,582 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,491 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 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 335,591 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% 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 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.