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 |
Children's discomfort in assessments using different methods for approximal caries detection
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Brazilian Oral Research, April 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1590/s1806-83242012000200002 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Tatiane Fernandes Novaes, Ronilza Matos, Daniela Prócida Raggio, Mariana Minatel Braga, Fausto Medeiros Mendes |
| Abstract |
Because discomfort caused by different approximal caries detection methods can influence their performance, the assessment of this discomfort is important. Thus, this study aimed to evaluate the discomfort reported by children after the use of different diagnostic methods to detect approximal caries lesions in primary teeth: visual inspection, bitewing radiography, laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent pen - LFpen) and temporary separation with orthodontic rubbers. Seventy-six children aged 4 to 12 years were examined using these methods. Their discomfort was assessed using the Wong-Baker scale and compared among the methods. Visual inspection caused less discomfort than did other methods. Radiography and the LFpen presented similar levels of discomfort. Older children reported higher discomfort using temporary separation, whereas younger children reported less discomfort with the LFpen. In conclusion, radiographic, temporary separation and LFpen methods provoke higher discomfort than visual inspection. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Chile | 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 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 49 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 8% |
| Professor | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 9 | 18% |
| Unknown | 14 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 26 | 53% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Materials Science | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 18 | 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 30 June 2012.
All research outputs
#20,655,488
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Brazilian Oral Research
#296
of 509 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#135,760
of 174,012 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Brazilian Oral Research
#5
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 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 509 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.3. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 174,012 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.