↓ Skip to main content

Randomized Clinical Trial of Intraosseous Methylprednisolone Injection for Acute Pulpitis Pain

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Endodontics, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
86 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
Randomized Clinical Trial of Intraosseous Methylprednisolone Injection for Acute Pulpitis Pain
Published in
Journal of Endodontics, November 2015
DOI 10.1016/j.joen.2015.09.003
Pubmed ID
Authors

Khaly Bane, Emmanuel Charpentier, François Bronnec, Vianney Descroix, Fatou Gaye-N'diaye, Abdoul Wahabe Kane, Rafael Toledo, Pierre Machtou, Jean Azérad

Abstract

The present study reports the results of a randomized clinical trial comparing local intraosseous methylprednisolone injection and emergency pulpotomy in the management of acute pulpitis on efficacy, safety, and efficiency end points. After providing prior informed written consent, 94 patients consulting for acute irreversible pulpitis pain at university-affiliated teaching hospital dental clinics in Dakar, Senegal were randomly assigned to either the methylprednisolone treatment group (n = 47) or the pulpotomy treatment group (n = 47). Patients were followed up at 1 week and assessed 6 months later to evaluate the therapeutic outcome of their treatment. At day 7 the patients in the methylprednisolone group reported less intense spontaneous and percussion pain in the day 0-day 7 period than the patients in the pulpotomy group. Methylprednisolone treatment took approximately 7 minutes (4.6-9.3) less to accomplish than pulpotomy (or about half the time). No difference in the therapeutic outcome was found between the 2 treatment groups at 6 months (all credible intervals span 0). This study establishes that methylprednisolone injection for acute pulpitis is relieved by a minimally invasive pharmacologic approach more effectively than by the reference pulpotomy and conserves scarce dental resources (ie, endodontic equipment and supplies, dental surgeon's time).

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 2 2%
Turkey 1 1%
Unknown 83 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 19%
Student > Postgraduate 11 13%
Professor 6 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 6%
Student > Bachelor 5 6%
Other 24 28%
Unknown 19 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 54 63%
Unspecified 2 2%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 1%
Computer Science 1 1%
Other 6 7%
Unknown 20 23%
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 15 April 2017.
All research outputs
#20,657,128
of 25,377,790 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Endodontics
#1,512
of 2,291 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#288,835
of 392,477 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Endodontics
#18
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,377,790 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,291 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% 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 392,477 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.