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 |
Changes in views on digital intraoral scanners among dental hygienists after training in digital impression taking
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Oral Health, November 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12903-015-0140-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hye-Ran Park, Ji-Man Park, Youn-Sic Chun, Kkot-Nim Lee, Minji Kim |
| Abstract |
Despite the rapid development of digital dentistry, the use of digital intraoral scanners remains limited. The aim of this study was to evaluate the changes in views on intraoral scanners among dental hygienists after training. Thirty-four dental hygienists with >3 years of clinical experience participated and were divided into 2 groups : iTero and Trios groups. Participants of each group practiced the usage of both intraoral scanners, for total 12 times over 4 sessions, Questionnaires were given to participants at two different times; prior to and after the completion of the training sessions. The parameters of questionnaires included on difficulty of use, patient discomfort, awareness, preference, and clinical usefulness of intraoral scanners and comparison of two types of scanners. Upon the completion of the training, both iTero and Trios groups gave positive feedback on anticipated accuracy, efficiency, and clinical usefulness. More participants of the iTero group responded that the level of difficulty of use and patient discomfort was greater than Trios. Both groups preferred Trios for its clinical usefulness. The perceptions of dental hygienists on usage of intraoral scanner and digital impression improved positively with the training. The participants favored Trios over iTero in terms of difficulty of use , patient comfort, and clinical usefulness. This study showed that appropriate training could change the views on the efficiency of intraoral scanners positively among dental hygienists. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| South Africa | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 33% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 100 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 100 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 18 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 5% |
| Professor | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 18 | 18% |
| Unknown | 38 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 48 | 48% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 2% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 2% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 2% |
| Mathematics | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 2 | 2% |
| Unknown | 43 | 43% |
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 11 January 2018.
All research outputs
#14,206,546
of 25,084,886 outputs
Outputs from BMC Oral Health
#577
of 1,737 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#186,855
of 399,593 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Oral Health
#12
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,084,886 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 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 66% 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 399,593 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 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.