↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

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 (91st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
19 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
144 Mendeley
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 Z, Carter B, de Souza RF, de Andrade Lima Chaves C, Nasser M, Sequeira-Byron P

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.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Russia 1 <1%
Unknown 143 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 39 27%
Student > Bachelor 16 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 9%
Student > Postgraduate 10 7%
Other 33 23%
Unknown 20 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 112 78%
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 20 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 19 August 2015.
All research outputs
#1,742,026
of 18,150,220 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,188
of 11,808 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,808
of 135,470 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#24
of 98 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,150,220 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 11,808 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.5. 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 135,470 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 98 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.