↓ Skip to main content

Post endodontic pain following single-visit root canal preparation with rotary vs reciprocating instruments: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Oral Health, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 X users
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
123 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
Post endodontic pain following single-visit root canal preparation with rotary vs reciprocating instruments: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials
Published in
BMC Oral Health, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12903-017-0355-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xiao-Mei Hou, Zheng Su, Ben-Xiang Hou

Abstract

In endodontic therapy, continuous rotary instrumentation reduced debris compared to reciprocal instrumentation, which might affect the incidence of post-endodontic pain (PP). The aim of our study was to assess whether PP incidence and levels were influenced by the choice of rotary or reciprocal instruments. In this meta-analysis the Pubmed and EM databases were searched for prospective clinical randomized trials published before April 20, 2016, using combinations of the keywords: root canal preparation/instrumentation/treatment/therapy; post-operative/endodontic pain; reciprocal and rotary instruments. Three studies were included, involving a total of 1,317 patients, 659 treated with reciprocating instruments and 658 treated with rotary instruments. PP was reported in 139 patients in the reciprocating group and 172 in the rotary group. The PP incidence odds ratio was 1.27 with 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.25, 6.52) favoring rotary instruments. The mild, moderate and severe PP levels odds ratios were 0.31 (0.11, 0.84), 2.24 (0.66, 7.59) and 11.71 (0.63, 218.15), respectively. No evidence of publication bias was found. Rotary instrument choice in endodontic therapy is associated with a lower incidence of PP than reciprocating instruments, while reciprocating instruments are associated with less mild PP incidence.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users 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 123 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Egypt 1 <1%
Unknown 122 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 29 24%
Student > Postgraduate 12 10%
Student > Bachelor 9 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 4%
Other 15 12%
Unknown 46 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 63 51%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Arts and Humanities 2 2%
Engineering 2 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 <1%
Other 2 2%
Unknown 50 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 27 September 2022.
All research outputs
#2,918,262
of 23,419,482 outputs
Outputs from BMC Oral Health
#142
of 1,532 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,682
of 314,668 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Oral Health
#3
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,419,482 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,532 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 314,668 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.