↓ Skip to main content

Mandibular molar uprighting using orthodontic miniscrew implants: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Progress in Orthodontics, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#23 of 255)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
3 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
168 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
Mandibular molar uprighting using orthodontic miniscrew implants: a systematic review
Published in
Progress in Orthodontics, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s40510-017-0200-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Panagiota Magkavali-Trikka, Georgios Emmanouilidis, Moschos A. Papadopoulos

Abstract

The purpose of this systematic review was to identify studies and present the use of miniscrew implants (MIs) as an alternative treatment to mandibular molar uprighting. An electronic search and handsearching were conducted by two independent reviewers to identify relevant articles, published up to January 27, 2017. In order to methodologically assess the eligible studies, a pilot checklist consisting of 22 items was also implemented. After exclusion of all the irrelevant papers, only 17 studies were included, presenting 27 cases of mandibular molar uprighting in all planes using both direct and indirect force traction by MIs. Regarding the quality evaluation, the mean score of the included studies was 13.2, indicating a rather poor methodology implemented in the majority of the included cases. Due to many advantages, MIs provide a unique treatment alternative and constitute a reliable solution for treating tipped or impacted molars. Regarding the force application, a direct method is simpler, as it requires one MI and a single bracket or button, minimizing the patient's discomfort and also reducing chair time compared to more complex indirect anchorage. It also eliminates the possibility of unwanted movement of the anchorage unit, which can occur even with indirect anchorage as a result of technical errors. However, direct anchorage has limitations in cases of lingually tipped or rotated molars because a single force may be insufficient to upright the tooth.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 168 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 168 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 26 15%
Student > Postgraduate 20 12%
Student > Bachelor 12 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 5%
Professor 9 5%
Other 22 13%
Unknown 70 42%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 84 50%
Social Sciences 4 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 1%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 1%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 <1%
Other 3 2%
Unknown 72 43%
Attention Score in Context

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 14 December 2020.
All research outputs
#4,193,865
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Progress in Orthodontics
#23
of 255 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#84,844
of 449,895 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Progress in Orthodontics
#2
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 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 449,895 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 81% 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 84% of its contemporaries.