↓ Skip to main content

Is there a best conventional material for restoring posterior primary teeth? A network meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Brazilian Oral Research, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (60th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
146 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
Is there a best conventional material for restoring posterior primary teeth? A network meta-analysis
Published in
Brazilian Oral Research, March 2018
DOI 10.1590/1807-3107bor-2018.vol32.0010
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carine Weber Pires, Djessica Pedrotti, Tathiane Larissa Lenzi, Fabio Zovico Maxnuck Soares, Patricia Klarmann Ziegelmann, Rachel de Oliveira Rocha

Abstract

This study aimed to compare the longevity of different conventional restorative materials placed in posterior primary teeth. This systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA statement and registered in PROSPERO (CRD42016035775). A comprehensive electronic search without date or language restrictions was performed in PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, Turning Research Into Practice (TRIP) and Clinical Trials databases up to January 2017, selecting randomized clinical trials that assessed the longevity of at least two different conventional restorative materials performed in primary molars. Seventeen studies were included in this systematic review. Pairwise and network meta-analyses were performed and relative risks and 95% confidence intervals (CI) calculated. Two reviewers independently selected the studies, extracted the data, and assessed the risk of bias. Restorations of primary molars with conventional glass ionomer cement showed increased risk of failure than compomer, resin-modified glass ionomer cement, amalgam, and composite resin. Risk of bias was low in most studies (45.38% of all items across studies). Pediatric dentists should avoid conventional glass ionomer cement for restoring primary molars.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 146 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 26 18%
Student > Bachelor 14 10%
Other 10 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 7%
Student > Postgraduate 8 5%
Other 31 21%
Unknown 47 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 78 53%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 3%
Materials Science 3 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 1%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 1%
Other 7 5%
Unknown 50 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 29 March 2020.
All research outputs
#8,264,793
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Brazilian Oral Research
#60
of 509 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#134,821
of 344,853 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Brazilian Oral Research
#1
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 509 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 344,853 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them