↓ Skip to main content

Guidance on posterior resin composites: Academy of Operative Dentistry - European Section

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Dental Medicine, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
165 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
338 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Guidance on posterior resin composites: Academy of Operative Dentistry - European Section
Published in
Journal of Dental Medicine, January 2014
DOI 10.1016/j.jdent.2014.01.009
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christopher D. Lynch, Niek J. Opdam, Reinhard Hickel, Paul A. Brunton, Sevil Gurgan, Afrodite Kakaboura, Ann C. Shearer, Guido Vanherle, Nairn H.F. Wilson

Abstract

There have been many developments in operative dentistry in recent years, including a progressive shift to the use of resin composites, rather than dental amalgam, in the restoration of posterior teeth. This shift allows the adoption of minimal intervention approaches, thereby helping to conserve and preserve remaining tooth tissues and structures. This paper presents the position of the Academy of Operative Dentistry European Section (AODES) in relation to posterior resin composites. The AODES considers adhesively bonded resin composites of suitable composition and properties to be the "material of choice" for use in direct minimal intervention approaches to the restoration of posterior teeth. In so doing, the AODES emphasises the importance of the practice of evidence-based minimal intervention dentistry, including the use of refurbishment and repair techniques to extend the longevity of restorations. Guidance, based on best available evidence, has been made in relation to certain aspects of resin composite placement techniques in posterior teeth.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 338 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Poland 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Egypt 1 <1%
Unknown 334 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 52 15%
Student > Bachelor 35 10%
Student > Postgraduate 25 7%
Researcher 20 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 6%
Other 71 21%
Unknown 116 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 178 53%
Materials Science 10 3%
Social Sciences 4 1%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 <1%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 <1%
Other 16 5%
Unknown 124 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 22 March 2014.
All research outputs
#22,778,604
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Dental Medicine
#1,349
of 1,512 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#281,503
of 321,053 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Dental Medicine
#21
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,512 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 321,053 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.