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 |
Submerged flapless technique vs. conventional flap approach for implant placement: experimental domestic pig study with 12‐month follow‐up
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Oral Implants Research, July 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1111/clr.12665 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Carlos Pérez‐Albacete Martínez, Zoran Vlahović, Miodrag Šćepanović, Goran Videnović, Antonio Barone, José Luis Calvo‐Guirado |
| Abstract |
The aim of our study was to compare osseointegration and peri-implant crestal bone resorption in submerged flapless and conventional flap surgery over a 12-month follow-up. The study used five domestic pigs. Implants were inserted 9 weeks after tooth extraction. Each animal received six implants in the mandible, following a split-mouth design: one side was treated using a flapless technique using mini-incisions, while a flap was raised on the other. The animals were sacrificed at 2 weeks, 1, 3, 6 and 12 months after implant placement. Radiographic images were taken to analyze crestal bone loss, and samples were extracted for histopathological and bone-to-implant contact (BIC) analyses. Significantly, greater crestal bone loss (P = 0.005) was obtained in the flap group compared with the flapless group. The flapless group presented significantly higher percentages of BIC (P < 0.05) at 3, 6 and 12 months compared with the conventional flap group. Within the limitations of this experimental animal study, it may be concluded that the type of surgery (flap or flapless) affects peri-implant bone preservation and osseointegration of regular platform implants. Flapless surgery is associated with peri-implant crestal bone preservation. Flapless surgery in combination with submerged implants allows higher osseointegration values. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 35 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 9 | 24% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 16% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 14% |
| Researcher | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Unknown | 6 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 26 | 70% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 5% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 3% |
| Chemistry | 1 | 3% |
| Materials Science | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 6 | 16% |
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 04 July 2015.
All research outputs
#16,638,094
of 24,477,448 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Oral Implants Research
#667
of 1,218 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#158,570
of 267,637 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Oral Implants Research
#21
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,477,448 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,218 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.8. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 267,637 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.