↓ Skip to main content

Palatal injection for removal of maxillary teeth: is it required? A systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 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
Palatal injection for removal of maxillary teeth: is it required? A systematic review
Published in
International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, May 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.ijom.2016.05.005
Pubmed ID
Authors

E.K. Badenoch-Jones, T. Lincoln

Abstract

There is a growing body of work examining whether a palatal injection is necessary for the extraction of maxillary teeth with contemporary local anaesthetics. The available literature was reviewed systematically by conducting a search of the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases for trials examining outcomes of maxillary tooth extraction where buccal injection of local anaesthetic only was used for one or more test groups. The selected studies were reviewed for study type, sample size, quality, participant characteristics and methodology, outcome variables, and findings. Fifteen studies met the inclusion criteria. Six of the studies were randomized controlled trials. Four studies were controlled clinical trials that did not report randomization. Five were clinical trials that were not controlled and examined outcomes of one or more test groups. The pain of local anaesthetic injection(s) in the test group (buccal injection only) versus control group (buccal and palatal injection), number of cases requiring supplemental buccal or palatal injection in cases of unsuccessful local anaesthesia, and pain during the procedure were designated as primary outcomes. Pain on probing of the mucosa was designated as a secondary outcome. All nine controlled studies that assessed pain during the procedure found no statistically significant difference between the test and control groups.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 43 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 7 16%
Student > Master 5 12%
Other 3 7%
Unspecified 3 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 7%
Other 14 33%
Unknown 8 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 63%
Unspecified 3 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Unknown 12 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 25 July 2016.
All research outputs
#6,754,462
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery
#209
of 1,340 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#100,842
of 352,987 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery
#5
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,340 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 352,987 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.