↓ 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 (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
17 tweeters
patent
1 patent
facebook
3 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
67 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
310 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 17 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 310 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 1 <1%
Turkey 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Peru 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 305 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 80 26%
Student > Bachelor 40 13%
Student > Postgraduate 38 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 29 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 7%
Other 55 18%
Unknown 45 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 206 66%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 2%
Social Sciences 6 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 2%
Other 22 7%
Unknown 50 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 32. 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 21 August 2020.
All research outputs
#750,047
of 17,009,769 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,959
of 11,608 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,913
of 138,376 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7
of 84 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,009,769 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 11,608 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 138,376 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 84 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 92% of its contemporaries.