↓ Skip to main content

Replacement versus repair of defective restorations in adults: amalgam

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2014
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 (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
15 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
66 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
Replacement versus repair of defective restorations in adults: amalgam
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005970.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mohammad O Sharif, Alison Merry, Melanie Catleugh, Martin Tickle, Paul Brunton, Stephen M Dunne, Vishal R Aggarwal, Lee Yee Chong

Abstract

Amalgam is a common filling material for posterior teeth, as with any restoration amalgams have a finite life-span. Traditionally replacement was the ideal approach to treat defective amalgam restorations, however, repair offers an alternative more conservative approach where restorations are only partially defective. Repairing a restoration has the potential of taking less time and may sometimes be performed without the use of local anaesthesia hence it may be less distressing for a patient when compared with replacement. Repair of amalgam restorations is often more conservative of the tooth structure than replacement.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 2%
Unknown 65 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 21%
Student > Master 10 15%
Researcher 8 12%
Student > Bachelor 4 6%
Student > Postgraduate 3 5%
Other 12 18%
Unknown 15 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 47%
Psychology 3 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 19 29%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. 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 November 2016.
All research outputs
#910,792
of 15,330,882 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,620
of 11,167 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,642
of 257,031 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#51
of 190 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,330,882 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 11,167 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 257,031 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 190 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 73% of its contemporaries.