| Title |
Replacement versus repair of defective restorations in adults: amalgam
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd005970.pub3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mohammad O Sharif, Alison Merry, Melanie Catleugh, Martin Tickle, Paul Brunton, Stephen M Dunne, Vishal R Aggarwal, Lee Yee Chong |
| Abstract |
Amalgam is a common filling material for posterior teeth, as with any restoration amalgams have a finite life-span. Traditionally replacement was the ideal approach to treat defective amalgam restorations, however, repair offers an alternative more conservative approach where restorations are only partially defective. Repairing a restoration has the potential of taking less time and may sometimes be performed without the use of local anaesthesia hence it may be less distressing for a patient when compared with replacement. Repair of amalgam restorations is often more conservative of the tooth structure than replacement. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Chile | 3 | 21% |
| Saudi Arabia | 2 | 14% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 14% |
| Canada | 1 | 7% |
| Australia | 1 | 7% |
| Côte d'Ivoire | 1 | 7% |
| Norway | 1 | 7% |
| United States | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 2 | 14% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 29% |
| Scientists | 2 | 14% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 137 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| India | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 136 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 16 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 14 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 9% |
| Researcher | 11 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 9 | 7% |
| Other | 24 | 18% |
| Unknown | 50 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 54 | 39% |
| Psychology | 10 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 2% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 2% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 9 | 7% |
| Unknown | 55 | 40% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 30 November 2016.
All research outputs
#1,774,289
of 25,543,275 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,815
of 13,150 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,042
of 324,803 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#70
of 220 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,543,275 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,150 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 324,803 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 220 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 68% of its contemporaries.