| 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 | |
| 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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 7 | 39% |
| Spain | 3 | 17% |
| Canada | 2 | 11% |
| United States | 2 | 11% |
| Kuwait | 1 | 6% |
| Italy | 1 | 6% |
| Chile | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 1 | 6% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 12 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 22% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 6% |
| Scientists | 1 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 179 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Russia | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 178 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 43 | 24% |
| Student > Bachelor | 17 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 15 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 14 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 7% |
| Other | 34 | 19% |
| Unknown | 44 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 122 | 68% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 2% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | <1% |
| Philosophy | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 2 | 1% |
| Unknown | 44 | 25% |
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 28 July 2018.
All research outputs
#2,481,256
of 25,998,826 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,998
of 13,171 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,043
of 180,346 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#57
of 189 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,998,826 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 13,171 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 180,346 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 189 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 69% of its contemporaries.