↓ Skip to main content

Postoperative pain perception and associated risk factors in children after continuous rotation versus reciprocating kinematics: A randomised prospective clinical trial

Overview of attention for article published in Australian Endodontic Journal, April 2023
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
6 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
Postoperative pain perception and associated risk factors in children after continuous rotation versus reciprocating kinematics: A randomised prospective clinical trial
Published in
Australian Endodontic Journal, April 2023
DOI 10.1111/aej.12746
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ahmad Abdel Hamid Elheeny, Dania Ibrahem Sermani, Mahmoud Ahmed Abdelmotelb

Abstract

To compare the postoperative pain of continuous rotation and reciprocating movements after pulpectomy of non-vital primary molars and determine associated risk factors. 146 children aged 4-8 years with one primary molar indicated for pulpectomy were randomly assigned to two equal groups: those instrumented with continuous rotation motion (Hyflex EDM Coltene/Whaledent) and reciprocating motion (Reciproc R25 (VDW)). A 4-point pain scale was used to assess postoperative pain frequencies, which were compared at different intervals using the Chi-square test. Postoperative pain risk factors were determined using logistic regression analysis. There was no statistically significant difference between the follow-ups. Gender, pulp status, and radiographic radiolucency increased the risk of postoperative pain incidence. Postoperative pain likelihood in children with chronic apical periodontitis was 8.72 times that of children with necrotic pulps. Postoperative pain after instrumentation with both kinematics was comparable. Postoperative pain incidence is increased by preoperative pulp condition, radiographic radiolucency, and gender.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 6 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 6 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 1 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 17%
Student > Master 1 17%
Unknown 3 50%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 1 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 17%
Unknown 3 50%
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 07 April 2023.
All research outputs
#20,910,150
of 23,539,593 outputs
Outputs from Australian Endodontic Journal
#70
of 125 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#193,912
of 246,628 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Australian Endodontic Journal
#2
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,539,593 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 125 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.4. 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 246,628 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 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.