↓ Skip to main content

Platform Switching for Marginal Bone Preservation Around Dental Implants: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Periodontology, October 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
patent
5 patents
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Readers on

mendeley
454 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.
Article details
Title
Platform Switching for Marginal Bone Preservation Around Dental Implants: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis
Published in
Journal of Periodontology, October 2010
DOI 10.1902/jop.2010.100232
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Platform switching for maintaining peri-implant bone levels has gained popularity among implant manufacturers over the last few years. However, the assumption that the inward shifting of the implant-abutment junction may preserve crestal bone was primarily based on serendipitous finding rather than scientific evidence. The objectives of the present study were to systematically review radiographic marginal bone-level changes and the survival of platform-switched implants compared to conventional platform-matched implants.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 454 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 4 <1%
Spain 4 <1%
Uruguay 2 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Egypt 1 <1%
China 1 <1%
Other 2 <1%
Unknown 436 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 78 17%
Student > Postgraduate 44 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 40 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 32 7%
Researcher 32 7%
Other 114 25%
Unknown 114 25%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 287 63%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 2%
Engineering 7 2%
Unspecified 5 1%
Materials Science 5 1%
Other 15 3%
Unknown 127 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 30 December 2025.
All research outputs
#2,473,540
of 29,980,270 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Periodontology
#111
of 2,344 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,690
of 124,136 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Periodontology
#2
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 29,980,270 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,344 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 124,136 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.