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 |
Four-year Survival of Endodontically Treated Premolars Restored with Fiber Posts
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Reviews in Oral Biology & Medicine, March 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1177/0022034514527970 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
J. Juloski, G.M. Fadda, F. Monticelli, M. Fajó-Pascual, C. Goracci, M. Ferrari |
| Abstract |
The objective of this prospective clinical trial was to investigate the influence of the residual coronal structure of endodontically treated teeth and the type of cement used for luting fiber posts on four-year clinical survival. Two groups (n = 60) were defined, depending on the amount of residual coronal dentin after abutment build-up and final preparation: (1) more than 50% of coronal residual structure; and (2) equal to or less than 50% of coronal residual structure. Within each group, teeth were randomly divided into 2 subgroups (n = 30) according to the material used for luting fiber posts: (A) resin core build-up material, Gradia Core; or (B) self-adhesive universal cement GCem Automix. The rate of success was assessed based on clinical and intra-oral radiographic examinations at the follow-up after 6, 12, 24, 36, and 48 months. The highest 48-month success and survival rates were recorded in group 1A (90% and 100%, respectively), whereas teeth in group 2B exhibited the lowest performance (63.3% success rate, 86.6% survival rate). Cox regression analysis revealed that neither the amount of coronal residual structure nor the luting material significantly influenced the failure risk (p > .05). |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 174 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Chile | 1 | <1% |
| Turkey | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 171 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 36 | 21% |
| Student > Bachelor | 20 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 18 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 13 | 7% |
| Other | 10 | 6% |
| Other | 33 | 19% |
| Unknown | 44 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 106 | 61% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 2% |
| Materials Science | 3 | 2% |
| Engineering | 3 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 1% |
| Other | 10 | 6% |
| Unknown | 46 | 26% |
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 16 April 2014.
All research outputs
#4,369,297
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Critical Reviews in Oral Biology & Medicine
#678
of 3,870 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,955
of 236,824 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Reviews in Oral Biology & Medicine
#9
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 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 3,870 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its peers.
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 236,824 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.