↓ Skip to main content

Treatment outcomes of single-visit versus multiple-visit non-surgical endodontic therapy: a randomised clinical trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Oral Health, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#26 of 636)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
170 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
Treatment outcomes of single-visit versus multiple-visit non-surgical endodontic therapy: a randomised clinical trial
Published in
BMC Oral Health, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12903-015-0148-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Amy Wai-Yee Wong, Cissy Sung-Chi Tsang, Shinan Zhang, Kar-Yan Li, Chengfei Zhang, Chun-Hung Chu

Abstract

Clincians have been providing single-visit and multiple-visit endodontic treatments for their patients. This study aims to compare the success rate, prevalence of postoperative pain and chairside time of single-visit and multiple-visit endodontic treatments. Patients who required primary endodontic treatment in a university dental clinic were randomly allocated to two general dentists for single-visit or multiple-visit treatments using the same materials and procedures. Ni-Ti rotary files were used to prepare the root canals, which were subsequently obturated with a core-carrier technique. The chairside time was recorded. The treated teeth were followed up every 6 months on clinically signs and symptoms including pain, tenderness to percussion, sinus tract, mobility and abscess. Periapical radiographs were taken to assess periapical pathology. Successful treatments were neither clinical signs/symptoms noted nor radiographic periapical pathology found postoperatively. A total of 220 teeth from patients aged 46.4 ± 14.1 were followed up for at least 18 months. The mean (±SD) follow-up period was 29.4 ± 9.3 months. The success rates of single-visit and multiple-visit treatments were 88.9 and 87.4 %, respectively (p = 0.729, effect size odds ratio = 1.156). Maxillary teeth had odds ratios of 3.16 (95 % CI: 1.33 to 7.46; p = 0.009) and absence of preoperative apical periodontitis had odds ratios of 4.35 (95 % CI: 1.43 to 13.24; p = 0.010) were identified from logistic regression as having a higher success rate. The average chairside times of single-visit and multiple-visit treatments were 62.0 and 92.9 min, respectively (mean difference = -30.9, 95 % CI: -39.4 to -22.4, p < 0.001, effect size odds ratio = -0.996). Single-visit and multiple-visit treatment had no significant difference in the prevalence of postoperative pain within 7 days (21 and 12 %, p = 0.055, effect size odds ratio = 2.061) and after at least 18 months (0.9 and 1.0 %, p > 0.999, effect size odds ratio = 0.879). The success rate and prevalence of postoperative pain of single-visit or multiple-visit treatment had no significant difference. The chairside time for single-visit treatment was shorter than multiple-visit treatment. Clinical Trials (WHO) ChiCTR-IOR-15006117 registered on 20 March 2015.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 170 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Mexico 1 <1%
Turkey 1 <1%
Unknown 168 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 39 23%
Student > Postgraduate 21 12%
Student > Bachelor 15 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 8%
Other 9 5%
Other 28 16%
Unknown 44 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 109 64%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 1%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 1%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 1%
Computer Science 1 <1%
Other 10 6%
Unknown 44 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 09 April 2018.
All research outputs
#979,053
of 12,781,938 outputs
Outputs from BMC Oral Health
#26
of 636 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,239
of 354,446 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Oral Health
#5
of 104 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,781,938 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 636 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 354,446 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 104 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 95% of its contemporaries.