| Title |
Root canal posts for the restoration of root filled teeth
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2007
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd004623.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Bolla M, Muller-Bolla M, Borg C, Lupi-Pegurier L, Laplanche O, Leforestier E, Bolla, Marc, Muller-Bolla, Michele, Borg, Cybele, Lupi-Pegurier, Laurence, Laplanche, Olivier, Leforestier, Eric |
| Abstract |
The foundation for the reconstruction of endodontically-treated teeth can be provided by a metal or a non-metal post and core system but no guidelines exist for choosing one or the other in particular clinical cases. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 135 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 1% |
| Switzerland | 2 | 1% |
| Japan | 2 | 1% |
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| India | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 127 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 25 | 19% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 16 | 12% |
| Other | 13 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 10% |
| Researcher | 11 | 8% |
| Other | 27 | 20% |
| Unknown | 30 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 93 | 69% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | <1% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | <1% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 5 | 4% |
| Unknown | 30 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 14 August 2015.
All research outputs
#3,871,663
of 22,745,803 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,274
of 12,315 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,181
of 161,164 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#22
of 63 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,745,803 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,315 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.3. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 161,164 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 63 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.