↓ Skip to main content

Open versus closed surgical exposure of canine teeth that are displaced in the roof of the mouth

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2008
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
7 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1 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
Open versus closed surgical exposure of canine teeth that are displaced in the roof of the mouth
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2008
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006966.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicola Parkin, Philip E Benson, Bikram Thind, Anwar Shah, Parkin, Nicola, Benson, Philip E, Thind, Bikram, Shah, Anwar

Abstract

Palatal canines are upper permanent canine (eye) teeth that have become displaced in the roof of the mouth. They are a frequently occurring anomaly, present in 2% to 3% of the population. Management of this problem is both time consuming and expensive and involves surgical exposure (uncovering) followed by fixed braces for 2 to 3 years to bring the canine into alignment within the dental arch. Two techniques for exposing palatal canines are routinely used in the UK: one method (the closed technique) involves orthodontically moving the canine into its correct position beneath the palatal mucosa and the second method (the open technique) involves orthodontically moving the canine into its correct position above the palatal mucosa. To establish if clinical, patient centred and economic outcomes are different according to whether an 'open' or 'closed' technique is employed for uncovering palatal canines. MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register were searched (to 29th February 2008). There were no restrictions with regard to publication status or language. Patients receiving surgical treatment to correct upper palatally impacted canines. There was no restriction for age, presenting malocclusion or the type of active orthodontic treatment undertaken. Unilateral and bilaterally displaced canines were included.Trials including participants with craniofacial deformity/syndrome were excluded. Two review authors independently and in duplicate assessed studies for inclusion. The Cochrane Collaboration statistical guidelines were to be followed for data synthesis. No studies were found that met the inclusion criteria. This review has revealed that currently, there is no evidence to support one surgical technique over the other in terms of dental health, aesthetics, economics and patient factors. Until high quality clinical trials with participants randomly allocated into the two treatment groups are conducted, methods of exposing canines will be left to the personal choice of the surgeon and orthodontist.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 1 Mendeley reader of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 200%
Portugal 1 100%
India 1 100%
United Kingdom 1 100%
United States 1 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 30 3000%
Student > Master 21 2100%
Unspecified 16 1600%
Student > Bachelor 16 1600%
Student > Postgraduate 13 1300%
Other 38 3800%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 100 10000%
Unspecified 18 1800%
Social Sciences 5 500%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 300%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 300%
Other 5 500%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 30 June 2015.
All research outputs
#3,029,314
of 12,269,384 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,764
of 8,342 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,725
of 198,496 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#102
of 172 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,269,384 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,342 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.7. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 198,496 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 172 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.