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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
A systematic review and meta-analysis of the survival rate of implants placed in previously failed sites
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Brazilian Oral Research, May 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1590/1807-3107bor-2018.vol32.0027 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Giovane Hisse Gomes, Mônica Yuri Orita Misawa, Carolina Fernandes, Claudio Mendes Pannuti, Luciana Saraiva, Guy Huynh-Ba, Cristina Cunha Villar |
| Abstract |
The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the clinical outcomes of dental implants placed in previously early and late implant failed sites. An electronic literature search was conducted in several databases for articles published up to February 2018. Human clinical trials that received at least one implant in a previously failed site were included. Hence, the PICO question that was aimed to be addressed was: Do patients undergoing implant replacement (second and third attempts) in previous failed sites have survival rates similar to implants placed at first attempts? A random effects model was used to calculate survival weighted means and corresponding 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) among studies. Eleven studies of low to moderate methodological quality were included in this review. Implants placed in sites with history of one and two implant failures had a weighted survival rate (SR) of 88.7% (95%CI 81.7-93.3) and 67.1% (95%CI 51.1-79.9), respectively. Implants placed in sites with a previous early failure revealed a weighted SR of 91.8% (95%CI 85.1-95.6). First implants presented higher SR than implants placed in sites with one or two previous implant failures. In contrast, implants placed in sites with one and two implant failures had similar SR. Within its limitations, this review suggests that replacement implants have moderate SR. Larger prospective studies with well-defined criteria for early and late implant failure are necessary to confirm and expand on these results. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Chile | 1 | 25% |
| Spain | 1 | 25% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 62 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Postgraduate | 11 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 8 | 13% |
| Unknown | 21 | 34% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 38 | 61% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 2% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 2% |
| Materials Science | 1 | 2% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 20 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 22 October 2021.
All research outputs
#2,967,519
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Brazilian Oral Research
#13
of 509 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,119
of 338,967 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Brazilian Oral Research
#1
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 509 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 338,967 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them