↓ Skip to main content

Dental Stigmata of Congenital Syphilis: A Historic Review With Present Day Relevance

Overview of attention for article published in Head and Neck Pathology, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
85 Mendeley
Title
Dental Stigmata of Congenital Syphilis: A Historic Review With Present Day Relevance
Published in
Head and Neck Pathology, February 2016
DOI 10.1007/s12105-016-0703-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eranga H. Nissanka-Jayasuriya, Edward W. Odell, Carina Phillips

Abstract

Syphilis was the first sexually transmitted disease to be diagnosed in childhood. Most developed countries controlled syphilis effectively after the 1950s and congenital syphilis became rare. Since the late 1990s there has been a resurgence of syphilis in developed and developing countries and the WHO estimates that at least half a million infants die of congenital syphilis every year. The earliest reference to the dental manifestations of congenital syphilis was by Sir Jonathan Hutchinson, Assistant Surgeon at The London Hospital in 1861. Three main dental defects are described in congenital syphilis; Hutchinson's incisors, Moon's molars or bud molars, and Fournier's molars or mulberry molars. Although many physicians, dentists, and pathologists in developed countries will be aware of the dental features of syphilis, most will never have seen a case or made the diagnosis. The purpose of this article is to review some of the history of congenital syphilis, remind healthcare professionals of the features, and bring to their attention that the changes are still prevalent and that milder cases can be mistaken for other causes of hypoplasia.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 85 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 28 33%
Student > Master 12 14%
Student > Postgraduate 11 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 6%
Researcher 4 5%
Other 13 15%
Unknown 12 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 46 54%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Other 7 8%
Unknown 15 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 12 December 2023.
All research outputs
#5,466,525
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from Head and Neck Pathology
#535
of 1,043 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#76,882
of 315,390 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Head and Neck Pathology
#13
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,043 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.0. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 315,390 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.