| Title |
A practical guide to endodontic access cavity preparation in molar teeth
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
British Dental Journal, August 2007
|
| DOI | 10.1038/bdj.2007.682 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
S. Patel, J. Rhodes |
| Abstract |
The main objective of access cavity preparation is to identify the root canal entrances for subsequent preparation and obturation of the root canal system. Access cavity preparation can be one of the most challenging and frustrating aspects of endodontic treatment, but it is the key to successful treatment. Inadequate access cavity preparation may result in difficulty locating or negotiating the root canals. This may result in inadequate cleaning, shaping and filling of the root canal system. It may also contribute to instrument separation and aberrations of canal shape. These factors may ultimately lead to failure of treatment. Good access cavity design and preparation is therefore imperative for quality endodontic treatment, prevention of iatrogenic problems, and prevention of endodontic failure. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Saudi Arabia | 2 | 40% |
| Unknown | 3 | 60% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 40% |
| Members of the public | 2 | 40% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 252 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Chile | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 250 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 44 | 17% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 32 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 22 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 22 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 20 | 8% |
| Other | 47 | 19% |
| Unknown | 65 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 165 | 65% |
| Unspecified | 5 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 2% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | <1% |
| Computer Science | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 5 | 2% |
| Unknown | 70 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 23 August 2022.
All research outputs
#2,572,503
of 25,711,194 outputs
Outputs from British Dental Journal
#561
of 6,573 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,624
of 77,234 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Dental Journal
#1
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,711,194 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,573 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 77,234 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 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 96% of its contemporaries.