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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Factors that cause endodontic failures in general practices in Japan
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Oral Health, April 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12903-018-0530-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mikiyo Yamaguchi, Yuichiro Noiri, Yoshihiro Itoh, Shungo Komichi, Kyoko Yagi, Reo Uemura, Haruna Naruse, Saori Matsui, Nanako Kuriki, Mikako Hayashi, Shigeyuki Ebisu |
| Abstract |
Bacterial biofilms that develop on root surfaces outside apical foramens have been found to be associated with refractory periapical periodontitis. However, several other factors cause endodontic failures apart from extraradicular biofilms. The aim of this study was to identify the factors causing endodontic failures in general practices in Japan. Patients diagnosed as having refractory periapical periodontitis by general practitioners and who requested endodontic treatment at Osaka University Dental Hospital were selected by checking medical records from April 2009 to March 2013. Factors causing endodontic failures were identified. A total of 103 teeth were selected, and 76 teeth completed root-canal treatment. Tooth extractions were required for 18 teeth after or without endodontic treatment. Six teeth required apicoectomy after endodontic treatment. One tooth needed hemisection. One tooth needed intentional replantation. One tooth needed adhesion and replantation. The main causes of treatment failure were open apices (24 teeth), perforation (18 teeth), and root fracture (13 teeth). In six teeth with open apices that required apicoectomy or extraction, extraradicular biofilms may have been related to endodontic failure. Most endodontic cases diagnosed with refractory periapical periodontitis by general practitioners were compromised by any other factors rather than extraradicular biofilms. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 191 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 191 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 23 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 22 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 13 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 5% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 10 | 5% |
| Other | 21 | 11% |
| Unknown | 92 | 48% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 83 | 43% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 1% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | <1% |
| Computer Science | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 11 | 6% |
| Unknown | 90 | 47% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 30 April 2018.
All research outputs
#20,483,282
of 23,045,021 outputs
Outputs from BMC Oral Health
#1,187
of 1,498 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#287,458
of 326,468 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Oral Health
#28
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,045,021 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,498 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 326,468 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.