↓ Skip to main content

Replacement versus repair of defective restorations in adults: resin composite

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2014
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 (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
39 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
127 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: resin composite
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005971.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

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

Abstract

Composite filling materials have been increasingly used for the restoration of posterior teeth in recent years as a tooth-coloured alternative to amalgam. As with any filling material composites have a finite life-span. Traditionally, replacement was the ideal approach to treat defective composite restorations, however, repairing composites offers an alternative more conservative approach to the tooth structure where restorations are partly still serviceable. Repairing the 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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 39 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 127 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 <1%
Unknown 126 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 22 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 17%
Student > Master 17 13%
Researcher 13 10%
Student > Postgraduate 11 9%
Other 23 18%
Unknown 20 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 66 52%
Unspecified 5 4%
Decision Sciences 5 4%
Social Sciences 4 3%
Materials Science 3 2%
Other 14 11%
Unknown 30 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 36. 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 18 December 2018.
All research outputs
#580,027
of 15,335,820 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,597
of 11,169 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,752
of 257,056 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#32
of 190 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,335,820 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,169 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 257,056 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 96% 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 done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.