↓ Skip to main content

Awareness of forensic odontology among dentists in Australia: are they keeping forensically valuable dental records?

Overview of attention for article published in Australian Dental Journal, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 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
Awareness of forensic odontology among dentists in Australia: are they keeping forensically valuable dental records?
Published in
Australian Dental Journal, February 2016
DOI 10.1111/adj.12316
Pubmed ID
Authors

A R Al-Azri, J Harford, H James

Abstract

Forensic odontologists provide an important service to the community by identifying unknown deceased people, allowing both legal outcomes and family closure. Non-visual identification may be achieved by comparison of post-mortem data with ante-mortem dental records provided by oral health practitioners. Success is dependent largely on the accuracy and adequacy of data in the dental records. An online self-administered questionnaire evaluated Australian dentists' knowledge and behaviours relevant to forensic odontology. Reported record keeping practices were assessed for detail, legibility, accessibility and retention. Behaviours were classified according to the frequency of response. Dentists reported overall reasonable awareness of the major applications of forensic odontology. Personal information and details of restorative treatment were recorded at high levels, while tooth anomalies, photography, additional patient details and denture marking were recorded inadequately. Legible tooth coding was reported at a high level, while other key legibility practices were recorded inadequately. Few of the behaviours related to retention or to maximise accessibility were recorded at a high level. Australian dentists have high expectations of the forensic value of their dental records; however many practices that would enhance the diagnostic, medico-legal and forensic value of dental records are not routinely applied. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

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.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 51 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 10 20%
Student > Master 8 16%
Unspecified 5 10%
Student > Postgraduate 4 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 4%
Other 10 20%
Unknown 12 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 55%
Unspecified 5 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 4%
Arts and Humanities 1 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 13 25%
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 11 February 2016.
All research outputs
#19,223,153
of 24,477,448 outputs
Outputs from Australian Dental Journal
#529
of 758 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#283,681
of 409,834 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Australian Dental Journal
#15
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,477,448 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 758 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.5. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 409,834 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.