↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Adhesives for fixed orthodontic bands

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
19 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
153 Mendeley
Title
Adhesives for fixed orthodontic bands
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004485.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Declan T Millett, Anne-Marie Glenny, Rye CR Mattick, Joy Hickman, Nicky A Mandall

Abstract

Orthodontic treatment involves using fixed or removable appliances (dental braces) to correct the positions of teeth. It has been shown that the quality of treatment result obtained with fixed appliances is much better than with removable appliances. Fixed appliances are, therefore, favoured by most orthodontists for treatment. The success of a fixed orthodontic appliance depends on the metal attachments (brackets and bands) being attached securely to the teeth so that they do not become loose during treatment. Brackets are usually attached to the front and side teeth, whereas bands (metal rings that go round the teeth) are more commonly used on the back teeth (molars). A number of adhesives are available to attach bands to teeth and it is important to understand which group of adhesives bond most reliably, as well as reducing or preventing dental decay during the treatment period. To evaluate the effectiveness of the adhesives used to attach bands to teeth during fixed appliance treatment, in terms of:(1) how often the bands come off during treatment; and(2) whether they protect the banded teeth against decay during fixed appliance treatment. The following electronic databases were searched: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (searched 2 June 2016), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 5) in the Cochrane Library (searched 2 June 2016), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 2 June 2016) and EMBASE Ovid (1980 to 2 June 2016). We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. Randomised and controlled clinical trials (RCTs and CCTs) (including split-mouth studies) of adhesives used to attach orthodontic bands to molar teeth were selected. Patients with full arch fixed orthodontic appliance(s) who had bands attached to molars were included. All review authors were involved in study selection, validity assessment and data extraction without blinding to the authors, adhesives used or results obtained. All disagreements were resolved by discussion. Five RCTs and three CCTs were identified as meeting the review's inclusion criteria. All the included trials were of split-mouth design. Four trials compared chemically cured zinc phosphate and chemically cured glass ionomer; three trials compared chemically cured glass ionomer cement with light cured compomer; one trial compared chemically cured glass ionomer with a chemically cured glass phosphonate. Data analysis was often inappropriate within the studies meeting the inclusion criteria. There is insufficient high quality evidence with regard to the most effective adhesive for attaching orthodontic bands to molar teeth. Further RCTs are required.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 153 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 151 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 14%
Student > Bachelor 20 13%
Student > Postgraduate 18 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 5%
Other 21 14%
Unknown 52 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 71 46%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 7%
Psychology 3 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 1%
Computer Science 2 1%
Other 10 7%
Unknown 55 36%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 24 September 2021.
All research outputs
#1,745,627
of 19,275,518 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,128
of 11,961 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,676
of 305,741 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#65
of 155 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,275,518 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,961 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 27.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 305,741 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 155 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 58% of its contemporaries.