| Title |
'Non-standard' panoramic programmes and the unusual artefacts they produce
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
British Dental Journal, August 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1038/sj.bdj.2017.707 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
S. Harvey, F. Ball, J. Brown, B. Thomas |
| Abstract |
Dental panoramic radiographs (DPTs) are commonly taken in dental practice in the UK with the number estimated to be 2.7 million per annum. They are used to diagnose caries, periodontal disease, trauma, pathology in the jaws, supernumerary teeth and for orthodontic assessment. Panoramic radiographs are not simple projections but involve a moving X-ray source and detector plate. Ideally only the objects in the focal trough are displayed. This is achieved with a tomographic movement and one or more centre(s) of rotation. One advantage of digital radiography is hardware and software changes to optimise the image. This has led to increasingly complex manufacturer specific digital panoramic programmes. Panoramic radiographs suffer from ghost artefacts which can limit the effectiveness and make interpretation difficult. Conversely 'conventional dental imaging' such as intraoral bitewings do not suffer the same problems. There are also now several 'non-standard' panoramic programmes which aim to optimise the image for different clinical scenarios. These include 'improved interproximality', 'improved orthogonality' and 'panoramic bitewing mode'.This technical report shows that these 'non-standard' panoramic programmes can produce potentially confusing ghost artefacts, of which the practitioner may not be aware. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 Kingdom | 3 | 38% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 4 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 6 | 75% |
| Members of the public | 2 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 19 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 4 | 21% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 5% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 5% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 4 | 21% |
| Unknown | 6 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 63% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 2 | 11% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 4 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 26 September 2017.
All research outputs
#5,652,100
of 22,999,744 outputs
Outputs from British Dental Journal
#1,607
of 6,058 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#88,386
of 316,645 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Dental Journal
#25
of 70 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,999,744 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,058 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 316,645 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 70 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 64% of its contemporaries.