↓ Skip to main content

Best clinical practice guidance for local analgesia in paediatric dentistry: an EAPD policy document

Overview of attention for article published in European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 Mendeley
Title
Best clinical practice guidance for local analgesia in paediatric dentistry: an EAPD policy document
Published in
European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry, October 2017
DOI 10.1007/s40368-017-0311-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

J. Kühnisch, M. Daubländer, G. Klingberg, A. Dougall, M. Spyridonos Loizides, E. Stratigaki, J. L. Amar, V. Anttonen, M. Duggal, S. Gizani

Abstract

The European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry (EAPD) proposes this best-practice guidance to help practitioners to decide when and how to use local analgesia to control pain in children, adolescents, and medically compromised individuals during the delivery of oral health care. A search of different databases was conducted using all terms relevant to the subject. Relevant papers were identified after a review of their titles, abstracts or full papers. Three workshops were held during the corresponding EAPD interim seminar in Torino (Italy) in 2017. Several statements were agreed upon and, furthermore, knowledge gaps were identified. An important outcome was that when local analgesia administered appropriately-correct choice of agent(s) and dosage, proper route of administration-it is, firstly, clinically effective for pain-control in treating children and, secondly, it carries a very low risk of morbidity including adverse or side-effects. Furthermore, several gaps in knowledge were identified during the workshop which indicates future research needs. Most importantly it remains unsatisfactory that in several European countries the most frequently used injectable local analgesic agent, articaine, is not approved for usage in children below the age of 4 years. When considering the dental demand to treat vulnerable (medically compromised) children and adolescents in a safe, painless, less-invasive and effective way, there seems to be an urgent need to close these gaps in knowledge.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 67 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 13%
Other 8 12%
Student > Postgraduate 5 7%
Student > Bachelor 5 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 6%
Other 13 19%
Unknown 23 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 49%
Unspecified 3 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 1%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 1%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 23 34%
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 30 June 2018.
All research outputs
#20,523,725
of 23,092,602 outputs
Outputs from European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry
#239
of 285 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#283,377
of 324,886 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry
#3
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,092,602 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 285 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. 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 324,886 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 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.