↓ Skip to main content

In vitro standardization of two different removal devices in cemented implant prosthesis

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Oral Implants Research, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
17 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
In vitro standardization of two different removal devices in cemented implant prosthesis
Published in
Clinical Oral Implants Research, July 2015
DOI 10.1111/clr.12671
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gianmario Schierano, Carlo Manzella, Giulio Menicucci, Alessio Parrotta, Elisabetta M Zanetti, Alberto L Audenino

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to describe the force generated by two different removal devices used to retrieve cemented crowns on implant abutments. The influence of six different operators was evaluated. Three replicated Coronaflex(®) (Kaltenbach & Voigt GmbH, KaVo Dental GmbH) and reverse hammer setups were tested. The experimental setup has employed a screw bearing a diametral hole through which a loop holder passed. The screw was attached to a force transducer (Brüel & Kjaer, type 8201), and the loop holder arm was kept perpendicular to the transducer axis. The results were statistically evaluated with ANOVA. The operator has resulted to play significant influence with reference to reverse hammer (coefficient of variation 43.3%) rather than with Coronaflex(®) (9.8%). Evaluating every single operator, more variation can still be found by considering each reverse hammer (37.5%) rather than each Coronaflex(®) (8.8%). Coronaflex(®) device was found to systematically reach a more repeatable and higher peak amplitude of forces compared with reverse hammer, both by experienced and inexperienced operators.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 17 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 3 18%
Researcher 3 18%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 12%
Student > Postgraduate 2 12%
Student > Bachelor 2 12%
Other 2 12%
Unknown 3 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 59%
Unspecified 1 6%
Materials Science 1 6%
Engineering 1 6%
Unknown 4 24%
Attention Score in Context

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 27 July 2015.
All research outputs
#16,638,094
of 24,477,448 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Oral Implants Research
#667
of 1,218 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#158,460
of 267,725 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Oral Implants Research
#22
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,477,448 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,218 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.8. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 267,725 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.