↓ Skip to main content

Irrigants for non-surgical root canal treatment in mature permanent teeth

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2012
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 (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
18 tweeters
patent
1 patent
facebook
3 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
234 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Irrigants for non-surgical root canal treatment in mature permanent teeth
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008948.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zbys Fedorowicz, Mona Nasser, Patrick Sequeira-Byron, Raphael Freitas de Souza, Ben Carter, Marc Heft

Abstract

Root canal treatment is carried out on teeth in which irreversible pulpitis has led to necrosis of the dental pulp. As a treatment option it is an alternative to dental extraction. Mechanical preparation and irrigation with antiseptic or antibacterial solutions destroys bacteria and cleans the infected root canal. Irrigants should be effective in deactivating bacteria in the entire root canal space without causing any adverse tissue reactions. Sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) and chlorhexidine are commonly used but there is uncertainty as to which solution, concentration or combination is the most effective.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Peru 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Egypt 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Turkey 1 <1%
Unknown 228 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 70 30%
Student > Postgraduate 32 14%
Unspecified 25 11%
Student > Bachelor 24 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 23 10%
Other 60 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 163 70%
Unspecified 32 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 3%
Psychology 6 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 2%
Other 20 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 28. 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 15 August 2019.
All research outputs
#600,868
of 13,514,491 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,922
of 10,621 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,947
of 127,727 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8
of 91 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,514,491 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,621 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 127,727 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 91 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.