↓ Skip to main content

Tooth injury in anaesthesiology

Overview of attention for article published in Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology (English edition), April 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#45 of 363)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
reddit
2 Redditors

Readers on

mendeley
59 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
Tooth injury in anaesthesiology
Published in
Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology (English edition), April 2014
DOI 10.1016/j.bjane.2013.04.011
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Dental injury is the most common complication of general anaesthesia and has significant physical, economic and forensic consequences. The aim of this study is to review on the characteristics of dental injury associated with anaesthesiology and existing methods of prevention. In this review, the time of anaesthesia in which the dental injury occurs, the affected teeth, the most frequent type of injury, established risk factors, prevention strategies, protection devices and medico-legal implications inherent to its occurrence are approached. Before initiating any medical procedure that requires the use of classic laryngoscopy, a thorough and detailed pre-aesthetic evaluation of the dental status of the patient is imperative, in order to identify teeth at risk, analyze the presence of factors associated with difficult intubation and outline a prevention strategy that is tailored to the risk of dental injury of each patient.

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.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 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 %
Unknown 59 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 7 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 10%
Researcher 6 10%
Student > Master 5 8%
Other 4 7%
Other 11 19%
Unknown 20 34%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 44%
Engineering 3 5%
Neuroscience 2 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 23 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 07 March 2017.
All research outputs
#7,181,698
of 34,410,798 outputs
Outputs from Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology (English edition)
#45
of 363 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#57,679
of 270,358 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology (English edition)
#1
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,410,798 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 363 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 270,358 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 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