↓ Skip to main content

Surgical techniques for the removal of mandibular wisdom teeth

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2014
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 (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
3 blogs
twitter
42 tweeters
facebook
7 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
229 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
Surgical techniques for the removal of mandibular wisdom teeth
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004345.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paul Coulthard, Edmund Bailey, Marco Esposito, Susan Furness, Tara F Renton, Helen V Worthington

Abstract

The surgical removal of mandibular wisdom teeth is one of the most common operations undertaken in oral and maxillofacial surgery. The most common indication for surgery is infection about a partially erupted tooth that is impacted against bone or soft tissues. Other indications include unrestorable caries, pulpal and periapical pathology, fracture of the tooth and cyst development, amongst others. Most commonly the benefits of surgical removal of a wisdom tooth include alleviation of the symptoms and signs of pericoronitis and its potential consequences. However, surgery is frequently associated with postoperative pain, swelling and trismus. Less commonly complications include infection, including dry socket, trigeminal nerve injuries and rarely fracture of the mandible.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 42 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 229 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Unknown 227 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 60 26%
Student > Bachelor 39 17%
Unspecified 31 14%
Student > Postgraduate 27 12%
Researcher 22 10%
Other 50 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 150 66%
Unspecified 44 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 3%
Psychology 5 2%
Other 14 6%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 51. 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 January 2019.
All research outputs
#356,103
of 13,763,053 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#969
of 10,740 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,939
of 192,786 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#21
of 226 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,763,053 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,740 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 192,786 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 226 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 90% of its contemporaries.