| Title |
Cone-beam computed tomography study of the root and canal morphology of mandibular permanent anterior teeth in a Chongqing population
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, December 2015
|
| DOI | 10.2147/tcrm.s95657 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yang Zhengyan, Lu Keke, Wang Fei, Li Yueheng, Zhou Zhi |
| Abstract |
To investigate the root and canal morphology of permanent mandibular anterior teeth in a Chongqing population using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). CBCT images of 1,725 patients in a Chongqing population were selected, and a total of 9,646 mandibular anterior teeth were analyzed. The number of root canals and the canal configurations were investigated. In total, 0.3% (11/3,257) of lateral incisors and 0.8% (26/3,014) of canines had double roots, and 3.8% (127/3,375) of central incisors, 10.6% (345/3,257) of lateral incisors, and 4.2% (127/3,014) of canines had multi-root canals. The difference in the incidence of multi-canals in lateral incisors between female and male was statistically significant. The frequency of multi-canals in the different age groups was 5.0% for central incisors for ages 21-30 years, 14.7% for lateral incisors for ages 41-50 years, and 8.1% for canines for ages 41-50 years. With the limitations of the current study, we found that a high percentage of mandibular anterior teeth had multiple canals in the studied Chinese Chongqing population. The current data may provide clinicians practicing in Chongqing with a more thorough understanding of root canal morphology. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 45 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 11% |
| Other | 2 | 4% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 11 | 24% |
| Unknown | 15 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 22 | 49% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 4% |
| Materials Science | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 18 | 40% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 December 2015.
All research outputs
#15,738,224
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#705
of 1,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#209,654
of 395,411 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#18
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,323 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.5. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 395,411 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.