↓ Skip to main content

Pain after root canal treatment with different instruments: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Oral Diseases, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
5 X users
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
108 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
Pain after root canal treatment with different instruments: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Published in
Oral Diseases, June 2018
DOI 10.1111/odi.12854
Pubmed ID
Authors

C Sun, J Sun, M Tan, B Hu, X Gao, J Song

Abstract

The aims of this systematic review were to compare the incidence and intensity of postoperative pain after single-visit root canal treatment using manual, rotary and reciprocating instruments. An extensive literature search in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science was performed to identify investigations that evaluated the effects of different instruments on post-endodontic pain. Meta-analyses and additional analyses, including subgroup and sensitivity analyses, were conducted. We included seventeen trials in this study. Pooled results showed that patients treated with rotary instruments experienced a significantly lower incidence of postoperative pain (RR, 0.32, P = 0.0005) and reduced pain intensity than did patients treated with manual instruments. In addition, patients treated with multiple rotary-file systems experienced a significantly lower incidence of postoperative pain than did those treated with reciprocating systems (RR, 0.73; P < 0.0001). The use of rotary instruments contributed to a lower incidence and intensity of postoperative pain than did the use of hand files in patients who received single-visit root canal treatment. In addition, the use of multiple rotary-file systems contributed to a lower incidence of postoperative pain than did the use of reciprocating systems. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 108 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 108 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 28 26%
Student > Postgraduate 13 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 6%
Student > Bachelor 6 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 5%
Other 13 12%
Unknown 37 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 57 53%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 <1%
Other 4 4%
Unknown 37 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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
#2,889,076
of 25,543,275 outputs
Outputs from Oral Diseases
#77
of 2,008 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#57,179
of 342,569 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Oral Diseases
#2
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,543,275 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,008 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 342,569 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.