↓ Skip to main content

Interventions for managing relapse of the lower front teeth after orthodontic treatment

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
32 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
186 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 managing relapse of the lower front teeth after orthodontic treatment
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008734.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yongchun Yu, Jie Sun, Wenli Lai, Taixiang Wu, Stephen Koshy, Zongdao Shi

Abstract

Orthodontic relapse can be defined as the tendency for teeth to return to their pre-treatment position, and this occurs especially in lower front teeth (lower canines and lower incisors). Retention, to maintain the position of corrected teeth, has become one of the most important phases of orthodontic treatment. However, 10 years after the completion of orthodontic treatment, only 30% to 50% of orthodontic patients effectively retain the satisfactory alignment initially obtained. After 20 years, satisfactory alignment reduces to 10%. When relapse occurs, simple effective strategies are required to effectively manage the problem. The periodontal, physiological or psychological conditions may be different from those before orthodontic treatment, so re-treatment methods may also need to be different.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 32 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 186 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Unknown 184 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 42 23%
Student > Postgraduate 25 13%
Student > Bachelor 19 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 8%
Researcher 13 7%
Other 28 15%
Unknown 45 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 99 53%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 4%
Social Sciences 6 3%
Psychology 5 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 2%
Other 15 8%
Unknown 50 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. 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 August 2019.
All research outputs
#704,605
of 15,734,937 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,930
of 11,270 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,767
of 170,140 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#20
of 111 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,734,937 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,270 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 170,140 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 111 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.