↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

What is this page? Embed badge

Single crowns versus conventional fillings for the restoration of root filled teeth

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2012
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 (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
19 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
170 Mendeley
Summary Twitter Wikipedia Dimensions citations
Title
Single crowns versus conventional fillings for the restoration of root filled teeth
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009109.pub2
Pubmed ID
22592736
Authors

Fedorowicz, Zbys, Carter, Ben, de Souza, Raphael Freitas, de Andrade Lima Chaves, Carolina, Nasser, Mona, Sequeira-Byron, Patrick, Chaves, Carolina de Andrade Lima

Abstract

Endodontic treatment, involves removal of the dental pulp and its replacement by a root canal filling. Restoration of root filled teeth can be challenging due to structural differences between vital and non-vital root filled teeth. Direct restoration involves placement of a restorative material e.g. amalgam or composite directly into the tooth. Indirect restorations consist of cast metal or ceramic (porcelain) crowns. The choice of restoration depends on the amount of remaining tooth which may influence long term survival and cost. The comparative in service clinical performance of crowns or conventional fillings used to restore root filled teeth is unclear.

View on publisher site

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 170 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Russia 1 <1%
Unknown 169 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 42 25%
Student > Bachelor 16 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 9%
Student > Postgraduate 13 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 7%
Other 34 20%
Unknown 38 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 121 71%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 <1%
Chemistry 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 37 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 July 2018.
All research outputs
#2,047,395
of 23,569,120 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,516
of 12,745 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,841
of 165,197 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#53
of 192 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,569,120 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,745 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 165,197 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 192 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 72% of its contemporaries.

This page is hosted by Altmetric on behalf of Cochrane Library.