↓ Skip to main content

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: different times for loading dental implants

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2013
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 (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
15 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
145 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
435 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.
Title
Interventions for replacing missing teeth: different times for loading dental implants
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003878.pub5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marco Esposito, Maria Gabriella Grusovin, Hassan Maghaireh, Helen V Worthington

Abstract

To minimise the risk of implant failures after their placement, dental implants are kept load-free for 3 to 8 months to establish osseointegration (conventional loading). It would be beneficial if the healing period could be shortened without jeopardising implant success. Nowadays implants are loaded early and even immediately and it would be useful to know whether there is a difference in success rates between immediately and early loaded implants compared with conventionally loaded implants.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 435 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 2 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
Egypt 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
China 1 <1%
Korea, Republic of 1 <1%
Other 5 1%
Unknown 419 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 101 23%
Student > Postgraduate 59 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 53 12%
Student > Bachelor 33 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 31 7%
Other 83 19%
Unknown 75 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 266 61%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 3%
Social Sciences 9 2%
Engineering 8 2%
Other 29 7%
Unknown 96 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 28 November 2017.
All research outputs
#1,214,825
of 16,277,929 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,230
of 11,463 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,208
of 156,076 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#21
of 106 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,277,929 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,463 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 156,076 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 106 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.