↓ Skip to main content

Routine scale and polish for periodontal health in adults

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2007
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 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
Routine scale and polish for periodontal health in adults
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2007
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004625.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Beirne, P, Worthington, H V, Clarkson, J E, Beirne, Paul V, Worthington, Helen V, Clarkson, Jan E

Abstract

Many dentists or hygienists provide scaling and polishing for patients at regular intervals, even if those patients are considered to be at low risk of developing periodontal disease. There is debate over the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of 'routine scaling and polishing' and the 'optimal' frequency at which it should be provided. The main objectives were: to determine the beneficial and harmful effects of routine scaling and polishing for periodontal health; to determine the beneficial and harmful effects of providing routine scaling and polishing at different time intervals on periodontal health; to compare the effects of routine scaling and polishing provided by a dentist or professionals complementary to dentistry (PCD) (dental therapists or dental hygienists) on periodontal health. We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE. Reference lists from relevant articles were scanned and the authors of eligible studies were contacted where possible to identify trials and obtain additional information. Date of most recent searches: 5th March 2007. Trials were selected if they met the following criteria: design - random allocation of participants; participants - anyone with an erupted permanent dentition who were judged to have received a 'routine scale and polish' (as defined in this review); interventions - 'routine scale and polish' (as defined in this review) and routine scale and polish provided at different time intervals; outcomes - tooth loss, plaque, calculus, gingivitis, bleeding and periodontal indices, changes in probing depth, attachment change, patient-centred outcomes and economic outcomes. Information regarding methods, participants, interventions, outcome measures and results were independently extracted, in duplicate, by two review authors. Authors were contacted where possible and where deemed necessary for further details regarding study design and for data clarification. A quality assessment of all included trials was carried out. The Cochrane Collaboration's statistical guidelines were followed and both standardised mean differences and mean differences were calculated as appropriate using random-effects models. Nine studies were included in this review. All studies were assessed as having a high risk of bias.Two split-mouth studies provided data for the comparison between scale and polish versus no scale and polish. One study, involving patients attending a recall programme following periodontal treatment, found no statistically significant differences for plaque, gingivitis and attachment loss between experimental and control units at each time point during the 1 year trial. The other study, involving adolescents in a developing country with high existing levels of calculus who had not received any dental treatment for at least 5 years, reported statistically significant differences in calculus and gingivitis (bleeding) scores between treatment and control units at 6, 12 and 22 months (in favour of 'scale and polish units') following a single scale and polish provided at baseline to treatment units. For comparisons between routine scale and polish provided at different time intervals, there were some statistically significant differences in favour of scaling and polishing provided at more frequent intervals: 2 weeks versus 6 months, 2 weeks versus 12 months (for the outcomes plaque, gingivitis, pocket depth and attachment change); 3 months versus 12 months (for the outcomes plaque, calculus and gingivitis). There were no studies comparing the effects of scaling and polishing provided by dentists or professionals complementary to dentistry. The research evidence is of insufficient quality to reach any conclusions regarding the beneficial and adverse effects of routine scaling and polishing for periodontal health and regarding the effects of providing this intervention at different time intervals. High quality clinical trials are required to address the basic questions posed in this review.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 49 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 14%
Student > Postgraduate 6 12%
Student > Bachelor 6 12%
Student > Master 6 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 10%
Other 19 37%
Unknown 2 4%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 69%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 10%
Computer Science 1 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 2 4%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 10 October 2013.
All research outputs
#1,540,806
of 14,638,868 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,138
of 11,033 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,451
of 251,912 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#220
of 496 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,638,868 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,033 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 251,912 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 496 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 55% of its contemporaries.