↓ 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 (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
3 blogs
twitter
40 tweeters
facebook
7 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
72 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
261 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 40 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 261 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 260 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 56 21%
Student > Bachelor 43 16%
Student > Postgraduate 25 10%
Researcher 24 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 20 8%
Other 40 15%
Unknown 53 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 152 58%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 3%
Psychology 6 2%
Computer Science 3 1%
Other 18 7%
Unknown 62 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 47. 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
#628,883
of 19,862,972 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,421
of 11,985 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,298
of 205,634 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#27
of 220 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,862,972 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,985 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 27.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 205,634 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 220 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.