↓ 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, November 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
77 tweeters
facebook
4 Facebook pages
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
103 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, November 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004625.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Helen V Worthington, Jan E Clarkson, Gemma Bryan, Paul V Beirne

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 for healthy adults.A 'routine scale and polish' treatment is defined as scaling or polishing or both of the crown and root surfaces of teeth to remove local irritational factors (plaque, calculus, debris and staining), that does not involve periodontal surgery or any form of adjunctive periodontal therapy such as the use of chemotherapeutic agents or root planing.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 77 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 103 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
Malaysia 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 99 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 17%
Student > Bachelor 16 16%
Researcher 11 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 7%
Other 20 19%
Unknown 13 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 61 59%
Psychology 6 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 5%
Social Sciences 4 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 3%
Other 7 7%
Unknown 17 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 79. 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 19 March 2019.
All research outputs
#233,122
of 14,171,705 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#552
of 10,874 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,388
of 185,148 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9
of 116 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,171,705 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,874 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 185,148 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 116 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.