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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Stability of smooth and rough mini-implants: clinical and biomechanical evaluation - an in vivostudy
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics, January 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1590/2177-6709.20.5.035-042.oar |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Giselle Naback Lemes Vilani, Antônio Carlos de Oliveira Ruellas, Carlos Nelson Elias, Cláudia Trindade Mattos |
| Abstract |
To compare in vivo orthodontic mini-implants (MI) of smooth (machined) and rough (acid etched) surfaces, assessing primary and secondary stability. Thirty-six (36) MI were inserted in the mandibles of six (6) dogs. Each animal received six (6) MI. In the right hemiarch, three (3) MI without surface treatment (smooth) were inserted, whereas in the left hemiarch, another three (3) MI with acid etched surfaces (rough) were inserted. The two distal MI in each hemiarch received an immediate load of 1.0 N for 16 weeks, whereas the MI in the mesial extremity was not subject to loading. Stability was measured by insertion and removal torque, initial and final mobility and by inter mini-implant distance. There was no statistical behavioral difference between smooth and rough MI. High insertion torque and reduced initial mobility were observed in all groups, as well as a reduction in removal torques in comparison with insertion torque. Rough MI presented higher removal torque and lower final mobility in comparison to smooth MI. MI did not remain static, with displacement of rough MI being smaller in comparison with smooth MI, but with no statistical difference. MI primary stability was greater than stability measured at removal. There was no difference in stability between smooth and rough MI when assessing mobility, displacement and insertion as well as removal torques. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 49 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 15 | 31% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 8% |
| Professor | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 3 | 6% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 7 | 14% |
| Unknown | 15 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 47% |
| Materials Science | 3 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Psychology | 1 | 2% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 4% |
| Unknown | 17 | 35% |
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 04 June 2016.
All research outputs
#4,836,328
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics
#32
of 459 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#62,242
of 359,530 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics
#6
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 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 459 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 359,530 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.