↓ Skip to main content

Resorbable versus titanium plates for orthognathic surgery

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2017
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 (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
26 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
147 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
Resorbable versus titanium plates for orthognathic surgery
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006204.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anirudha Agnihotry, Zbys Fedorowicz, Mona Nasser, Karanjot S Gill

Abstract

Recognition of some of the limitations of titanium plates and screws used for the fixation of bones has led to the development of plates manufactured from bioresorbable materials. Whilst resorbable plates appear to offer clinical advantages over metal plates in orthognathic surgery, concerns remain about the stability of fixation and the length of time required for their degradation and the possibility of foreign body reactions. This review compares the use of titanium versus bioresorbable plates in orthognathic surgery and is an update of the Cochrane Review first published in 2007. To compare the effects of bioresorbable fixation systems with titanium systems used during orthognathic surgery. Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 20 January 2017); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 11) in the Cochrane Library (searched 20 January 2017); MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 20 January 2017); and Embase Ovid (1980 to 20 January 2017). We searched the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov (clinicaltrials.gov; searched 20 January 2017), and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (searched 20 January 2017) for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. Randomised controlled trials comparing bioresorbable versus titanium fixation systems used for orthognathic surgery in adults. Two review authors independently screened the results of the electronic searches, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. We resolved disagreement by discussion. Clinical heterogeneity between the included trials precluded pooling of data, and only a descriptive summary is presented. This review included two trials, involving 103 participants, one comparing titanium with resorbable plates and screws and the other titanium with resorbable screws. Both studies were at high risk of bias and provided very limited data for the primary outcomes of this review. All participants in one trial suffered mild to moderate postoperative discomfort with no statistically significant difference between the two plating groups at different follow-up times. Mean scores of patient satisfaction were 7.43 to 8.63 (range 0 to 10) with no statistically significant difference between the two groups throughout follow-up. Adverse effects reported in one study were two plate exposures in each group occurring between the third and ninth months. Plate exposures occurred mainly in the posterior maxillary region, except for one titanium plate exposure in the mandibular premolar region. Known causes of infection were associated with loosened screws and wound dehiscence with no statistically significant difference in the infection rate between titanium (3/196), and resorbable (3/165) plates. We do not have sufficient evidence to determine if titanium plates or resorbable plates are superior for fixation of bones after orthognathic surgery. This review provides insufficient evidence to show any difference in postoperative pain and discomfort, level of patient satisfaction, plate exposure or infection for plate and screw fixation using either titanium or resorbable materials.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 26 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 147 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Peru 1 <1%
Unknown 144 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 33 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 13%
Student > Bachelor 16 11%
Researcher 13 9%
Student > Postgraduate 12 8%
Other 27 18%
Unknown 27 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 68 46%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 10%
Engineering 5 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 2%
Other 19 13%
Unknown 33 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 34. 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 17 February 2021.
All research outputs
#729,738
of 17,391,055 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,860
of 11,668 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,001
of 286,546 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#54
of 260 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,391,055 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 11,668 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 286,546 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 260 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.