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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Effectiveness of en masse versus two-step retraction: a systematic review and meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Progress in Orthodontics, January 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40510-017-0196-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mumen Z. Rizk, Hisham Mohammed, Omar Ismael, David R. Bearn |
| Abstract |
This review aims to compare the effectiveness of en masse and two-step retraction methods during orthodontic space closure regarding anchorage preservation and anterior segment retraction and to assess their effect on the duration of treatment and root resorption. An electronic search for potentially eligible randomized controlled trials and prospective controlled trials was performed in five electronic databases up to July 2017. The process of study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment was performed by two reviewers independently. A narrative review is presented in addition to a quantitative synthesis of the pooled results where possible. The Cochrane risk of bias tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used for the methodological quality assessment of the included studies. Eight studies were included in the qualitative synthesis in this review. Four studies were included in the quantitative synthesis. En masse/miniscrew combination showed a statistically significant standard mean difference regarding anchorage preservation - 2.55 mm (95% CI - 2.99 to - 2.11) and the amount of upper incisor retraction - 0.38 mm (95% CI - 0.70 to - 0.06) when compared to a two-step/conventional anchorage combination. Qualitative synthesis suggested that en masse retraction requires less time than two-step retraction with no difference in the amount of root resorption. Both en masse and two-step retraction methods are effective during the space closure phase. The en masse/miniscrew combination is superior to the two-step/conventional anchorage combination with regard to anchorage preservation and amount of retraction. Limited evidence suggests that anchorage reinforcement with a headgear produces similar results with both retraction methods. Limited evidence also suggests that en masse retraction may require less time and that no significant differences exist in the amount of root resorption between the two methods. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 33% |
| South Africa | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 129 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 129 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Postgraduate | 27 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 23 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 6% |
| Researcher | 5 | 4% |
| Other | 16 | 12% |
| Unknown | 42 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 73 | 57% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 3% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 2% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 1 | <1% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 2 | 2% |
| Unknown | 46 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 06 September 2018.
All research outputs
#4,263,639
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Progress in Orthodontics
#26
of 255 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#85,994
of 449,582 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Progress in Orthodontics
#3
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 255 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 449,582 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.