↓ Skip to main content

Bruxism and Dental Implants

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Implant Dentistry & Related Research, November 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
129 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
284 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
Bruxism and Dental Implants
Published in
Clinical Implant Dentistry & Related Research, November 2012
DOI 10.1111/cid.12015
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniele Manfredini, Carlo E. Poggio, Frank Lobbezoo

Abstract

PURPOSE: To systematically review the literature on the role of bruxism as a risk factor for the different complications on dental implant-supported rehabilitations. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic search in the National Library of Medicine's Medline Database was performed to identify all peer-reviewed papers in the English literature assessing the role of bruxism, as diagnosed with any other diagnostic approach (i.e., clinical assessment, questionnaires, interviews, polysomnography, and electromyography), as a risk factor for biological (i.e., implant failure, implant mobility, and marginal bone loss) or mechanical (i.e., complications or failures of either prefabricated components or laboratory-fabricated suprastructures) complications on dental implant-supported rehabilitations. The selected articles were reviewed according to a structured summary of the articles in relation to four main issues, viz., "P" - patients/problem/population, "I" - intervention, "C" - comparison, and "O" - outcome. RESULTS: A total of 21 papers were included in the review and split into those assessing biological complications (n = 14) and those reporting mechanical complications (n = 7). In general, the specificity of the literature for bruxism diagnosis and for the study of the bruxism's effects on dental implants was low. From a biological viewpoint, bruxism was not related with implant failures in six papers, while results from the remaining eight studies did not allow drawing conclusions. As for mechanical complications, four of the seven studies yielded a positive relationship with bruxism. CONCLUSIONS: Bruxism is unlikely to be a risk factor for biological complications around dental implants, while there are some suggestions that it may be a risk factor for mechanical complications.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 284 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Uruguay 1 <1%
Unknown 280 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 46 16%
Student > Master 45 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 8%
Student > Bachelor 21 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 5%
Other 61 21%
Unknown 72 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 179 63%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 2%
Engineering 4 1%
Unspecified 3 1%
Other 13 5%
Unknown 75 26%
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 17 November 2012.
All research outputs
#22,756,649
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Implant Dentistry & Related Research
#328
of 406 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#172,210
of 192,726 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Implant Dentistry & Related Research
#3
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 406 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 192,726 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.