↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Irrigants for non‐surgical root canal treatment in mature permanent teeth

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2012
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 (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
18 X users
patent
1 patent
facebook
3 Facebook pages
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
73 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
456 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Irrigants for non‐surgical root canal treatment in mature permanent teeth
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008948.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zbys Fedorowicz, Mona Nasser, Patrick Sequeira‐Byron, Raphael Freitas de Souza, Ben Carter, Marc Heft

Abstract

Root canal treatment is carried out on teeth in which irreversible pulpitis has led to necrosis of the dental pulp. As a treatment option it is an alternative to dental extraction. Mechanical preparation and irrigation with antiseptic or antibacterial solutions destroys bacteria and cleans the infected root canal. Irrigants should be effective in deactivating bacteria in the entire root canal space without causing any adverse tissue reactions. Sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) and chlorhexidine are commonly used but there is uncertainty as to which solution, concentration or combination is the most effective.

X Demographics

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.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 456 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 1 <1%
Turkey 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Peru 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 451 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 94 21%
Student > Bachelor 45 10%
Student > Postgraduate 44 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 35 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 6%
Other 72 16%
Unknown 138 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 247 54%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 4%
Psychology 10 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 1%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 1%
Other 25 5%
Unknown 146 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 32. 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 27 September 2022.
All research outputs
#1,247,740
of 25,457,297 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,611
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,288
of 187,469 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#50
of 218 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,297 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 187,469 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 218 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.