↓ Skip to main content

Dental amalgam: An update

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Conservative Dentistry, January 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#23 of 303)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
9 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
81 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
198 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
Dental amalgam: An update
Published in
Journal of Conservative Dentistry, January 2010
DOI 10.4103/0972-0707.73380
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ramesh Bharti, Kulvinder Kaur Wadhwani, Aseem Prakash Tikku, Anil Chandra

Abstract

Dental amalgam has served as an excellent and versatile restorative material for many years, despite periods of controversy. The authors review its history, summarize the evidence with regard to its performance and offer predictions for the future of this material. The PubMed database was used initially; the reference list for dental amalgam featured 8641 articles and 13 publications dealing with recent advances in dental amalgam. A forward search was undertaken on selected articles and using some author names. For the present, amalgam should remain the material of choice for economic direct restoration of posterior teeth. When esthetic concerns are paramount, tooth-colored materials, placed meticulously, can provide an acceptable alternative. All alternative restorative materials and procedures, however, have certain limitations.

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 198 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 3 2%
India 2 1%
Chile 1 <1%
Unknown 192 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 31 16%
Student > Master 29 15%
Student > Postgraduate 23 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 6%
Other 31 16%
Unknown 53 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 80 40%
Materials Science 13 7%
Chemistry 11 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 5%
Engineering 9 5%
Other 22 11%
Unknown 54 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 04 August 2022.
All research outputs
#3,703,605
of 25,795,662 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Conservative Dentistry
#23
of 303 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,658
of 174,889 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Conservative Dentistry
#5
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,795,662 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 303 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 174,889 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 18 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 72% of its contemporaries.