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 |
Relationship between facial morphology, anterior open bite and non-nutritive sucking habits during the primary dentition stage
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics, January 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1590/2176-9451.19.3.108-113.oar |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Melissa Proença Nogueira Fialho, Célia Regina Maio Pinzan-Vercelino, Rodrigo Proença Nogueira, Júlio de Araújo Gurgel |
| Abstract |
Non-nutritive sucking habits can cause occlusal alterations, including anterior open bite. However, not all patients develop this malocclusion. Therefore, the emergence of AOB does not depend on deleterious habits, only. Investigate a potential association between non-nutritive sucking habits (NNSHs), anterior open bite (AOB) and facial morphology (FM). 176 children in the primary dentition stage were selected. Intra and extraoral clinical examinations were performed and the children's legal guardians were asked to respond to a questionnaire comprising issues related to NNSHs. A statistically significant relationship was found between NNSHs and AOB. However, no association was found between these factors and children's facial morphology (FM). Non-nutritive sucking habits during the primary dentition stage play a key role in determining anterior open bite malocclusion regardless of patient's morphological facial pattern. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 86 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Postgraduate | 12 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 12% |
| Professor | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 12 | 14% |
| Unknown | 33 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 44 | 51% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 2% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 1% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 1% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 3 | 3% |
| Unknown | 34 | 40% |
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 03 July 2019.
All research outputs
#3,026,011
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics
#19
of 459 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,664
of 319,280 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics
#4
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 459 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.9. 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 319,280 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.