↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Interventions for the management of external root resorption

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
42 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
285 Mendeley
Title
Interventions for the management of external root resorption
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008003.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zohreh Ahangari, Mona Nasser, Mina Mahdian, Zbys Fedorowicz, Melissa A Marchesan

Abstract

External root resorption is a pathological process, which tends to occur following a wide range of mechanical or chemical stimuli such as infection, pressure, trauma or orthodontic tooth movement. Although it is predominantly detected by radiography, in some cases root resorption may be identified by clinical symptoms such as pain, swelling and mobility of the tooth. Treatment alternatives are case-dependent and aim to address the cause of the resorption and aid the regeneration of the resorptive lesion. To evaluate the effectiveness of any interventions that can be used in the management of external root resorption in permanent teeth. The following electronic databases were searched: the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 14 October 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, 2015, Issue 9), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 14 October 2015) and EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 14 October 2015). We searched the US National Institutes of Health Trials Register (http://clinicaltrials.gov) and the WHO Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. We included randomised controlled trials of permanent teeth with any type of external root resorption, which has been confirmed by clinical and radiological examination, comparing one type of intervention (root canal medications and canal filling, splinting or extraction of teeth or the surgical removal of any relevant pathology) with another, or with placebo or no treatment. Two review authors screened search records independently. Full papers were obtained for potentially relevant trials. If data had been extracted, the statistical guidelines set out in the Cochrane Handbook would have been followed. No randomised controlled trials that met the inclusion criteria were identified. However, we identified one ongoing study that is potentially relevant to this review and will be assessed when it is published. We were unable to identify any reports of randomised controlled trials regarding the efficacy of different interventions for the management of external root resorption. In view of the lack of reliable evidence on this topic, clinicians must decide on the most appropriate means of managing this condition according to their clinical experience with regard to patient-related factors. There is a need for well designed and conducted clinical trials on this topic, which conform to the CONSORT statement (www.consort-statement.org/).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 42 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 285 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Egypt 2 <1%
Nepal 1 <1%
Unknown 282 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 42 15%
Student > Postgraduate 33 12%
Student > Bachelor 24 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 23 8%
Researcher 13 5%
Other 45 16%
Unknown 105 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 131 46%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 2%
Psychology 5 2%
Other 19 7%
Unknown 107 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 45. 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 07 October 2020.
All research outputs
#935,243
of 25,543,275 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,840
of 13,150 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,406
of 393,983 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#57
of 271 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 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% 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 done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 393,983 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 271 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.