↓ 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 (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

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

Citations

dimensions_citation
72 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
442 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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 442 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 437 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 92 21%
Student > Bachelor 45 10%
Student > Postgraduate 44 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 35 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 6%
Other 79 18%
Unknown 120 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 243 55%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 4%
Psychology 10 2%
Unspecified 9 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 1%
Other 29 7%
Unknown 129 29%
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
#1,237,141
of 25,381,864 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,627
of 13,019 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,888
of 177,995 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#50
of 230 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,381,864 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 13,019 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 79% 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 177,995 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 230 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.