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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Materials used for indirect pulp treatment in primary teeth: a mixed treatment comparisons meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Brazilian Oral Research, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1590/1807-3107/2017.vol31.0101 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Pablo Silveira dos Santos, Djessica Pedrotti, Mariana Minatel Braga, Rachel de Oliveira Rocha, Tathiane Larissa Lenzi |
| Abstract |
This study aimed to systematically review the literature to address the question regarding the influence of different materials in the clinical and radiographic success of indirect pulp treatment in primary teeth. A literature search was carried out for articles published prior to January 2017 in PubMed/MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Scopus, TRIP and ClinicalTrials databases; relevant articles included randomized clinical trials that compared materials used for indirect pulp treatment in primary teeth. Two reviewers independently selected the studies and extracted the data. The effects of each material on the outcome (clinical and radiographic failures) were analyzed using a mixed treatment comparisons meta-analysis. The ranking of treatments according to their probability of being the best choice was also calculated. From 1,088 potentially eligible studies, 11 were selected for full-text analysis, and 4 were included in the meta-analysis. In all papers, calcium hydroxide liner was used as the control group versus an adhesive system, resin-modified glass ionomer cement or placebo. The follow-up period ranged from 24 to 48 months, with dropout rates of 0-25.7%. The material type did not significantly affect the risk of failure of the indirect pulp treatment. However, calcium hydroxide presented a higher probability of failure. In conclusion, there is no scientific evidence showing the superiority of any material used for indirect pulp treatment in primary teeth. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 120 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 120 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 16 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 14 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 12 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 4% |
| Other | 19 | 16% |
| Unknown | 44 | 37% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 67 | 56% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 2% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 2% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | <1% |
| Psychology | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 3 | 3% |
| Unknown | 44 | 37% |
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 09 March 2018.
All research outputs
#22,764,772
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Brazilian Oral Research
#384
of 509 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#385,951
of 446,012 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Brazilian Oral Research
#9
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 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 509 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.3. 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 446,012 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 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.