↓ Skip to main content

Antibacterial agents in composite restorations for the prevention of dental caries

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2013
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 (94th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
18 tweeters
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
128 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
Antibacterial agents in composite restorations for the prevention of dental caries
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007819.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tatiana Pereira-Cenci, Maximiliano S Cenci, Zbys Fedorowicz, Marina Azevedo

Abstract

Dental caries is a multifactorial disease in which the fermentation of food sugars by bacteria from the biofilm (dental plaque) leads to localised demineralisation of tooth surfaces, which may ultimately result in cavity formation. Resin composites are widely used in dentistry to restore teeth. These restorations can fail for a number of reasons, such as secondary caries, and restorative material fracture and other minor reasons. From these, secondary caries, which are caries lesions developed adjacent to restorations, is the main cause for restorations replacement. The presence of antibacterials in both the filling material and the bonding systems would theoretically be able to affect the initiation and progression of caries adjacent to restorations. This is an update of the Cochrane review published in 2009.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 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 128 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 128 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 16%
Student > Bachelor 16 13%
Researcher 14 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 9%
Other 25 20%
Unknown 30 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 64 50%
Materials Science 6 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 4%
Engineering 3 2%
Social Sciences 3 2%
Other 13 10%
Unknown 34 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. 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 30 August 2017.
All research outputs
#885,678
of 16,277,929 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,415
of 11,463 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,606
of 269,224 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#35
of 160 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,277,929 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,463 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 269,224 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 160 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.