| Title |
Local analgesia in paediatric dentistry: a systematic review of techniques and pharmacologic agents
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry, September 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40368-017-0302-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
G. Klingberg, K. Ridell, S. Brogårdh-Roth, M. Vall, H. Berlin |
| Abstract |
To evaluate the evidence supporting effects and adverse effects of local analgesia using different pharmacological agents and injection techniques during dental treatment in children and adolescents aged 3-19 years. A systematic literature search of databases including PubMed, Cochrane, and Scopus was conducted in November 2016. The PRISMA-statement was followed. Two review authors independently assessed the selected randomised control trials for risk of bias and quality. 725 scientific papers were identified. 89 papers were identified to be read in full text of which 80 were excluded. Finally, 9 papers were evaluated for quality and risk of bias. Many of the included papers had methodological shortcomings affecting the possibility to draw conclusions. Information about ethical clearance and consent were missing in some of the included papers. No alarming adverse effects were identified. One study was assessed as having low risk of bias. This reported inferior alveolar nerve block to be more effective than buccal infiltration for dental treatment of mandibular molars, while no differences were found regarding pharmacological agents. At present, there is insufficient evidence in support of any pharmacologic agent or injection technique as being superior compared to others. There is a need for more rigorous studies which also handle the ethical issues of including children in potentially painful studies. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Latvia | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 78 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 8% |
| Librarian | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 15 | 19% |
| Unknown | 34 | 44% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 33 | 42% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 3% |
| Chemistry | 2 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 1% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 3 | 4% |
| Unknown | 36 | 46% |
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 30 June 2018.
All research outputs
#17,915,942
of 23,002,898 outputs
Outputs from European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry
#194
of 284 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#226,880
of 316,254 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry
#2
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,002,898 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 284 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 316,254 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.