↓ Skip to main content

Interventions for the management of external root resorption

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2015
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 (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
46 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
107 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
Interventions for the management of external root resorption
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008003.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zohreh Ahangari, Mona Nasser, Mina Mahdian, Zbys Fedorowicz, Melissa A Marchesan

Abstract

External root resorption is a pathological process, which tends to occur following a wide range of mechanical or chemical stimuli such as infection, pressure, trauma or orthodontic tooth movement. Although it is predominantly detected by radiography, in some cases root resorption may be identified by clinical symptoms such as pain, swelling and mobility of the tooth. Treatment alternatives are case-dependent and aim to address the cause of the resorption and aid the regeneration of the resorptive lesion. To evaluate the effectiveness of any interventions that can be used in the management of external root resorption in permanent teeth. The following electronic databases were searched: the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 14 October 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, 2015, Issue 9), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 14 October 2015) and EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 14 October 2015). We searched the US National Institutes of Health Trials Register (http://clinicaltrials.gov) and the WHO Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. We included randomised controlled trials of permanent teeth with any type of external root resorption, which has been confirmed by clinical and radiological examination, comparing one type of intervention (root canal medications and canal filling, splinting or extraction of teeth or the surgical removal of any relevant pathology) with another, or with placebo or no treatment. Two review authors screened search records independently. Full papers were obtained for potentially relevant trials. If data had been extracted, the statistical guidelines set out in the Cochrane Handbook would have been followed. No randomised controlled trials that met the inclusion criteria were identified. However, we identified one ongoing study that is potentially relevant to this review and will be assessed when it is published. We were unable to identify any reports of randomised controlled trials regarding the efficacy of different interventions for the management of external root resorption. In view of the lack of reliable evidence on this topic, clinicians must decide on the most appropriate means of managing this condition according to their clinical experience with regard to patient-related factors. There is a need for well designed and conducted clinical trials on this topic, which conform to the CONSORT statement (www.consort-statement.org/).

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 46 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 107 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Egypt 2 2%
Nepal 1 <1%
Unknown 104 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 22%
Student > Postgraduate 16 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 11%
Student > Bachelor 8 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 6%
Other 23 21%
Unknown 18 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 60 56%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 3%
Social Sciences 2 2%
Other 9 8%
Unknown 21 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 47. 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 31 March 2020.
All research outputs
#422,844
of 14,568,848 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,132
of 11,019 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,142
of 358,545 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#41
of 221 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,568,848 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,019 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 358,545 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 221 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.