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 |
Control of anterior segment using an antero-posterior lingual sliding retraction system: a preliminary cone-beam CT study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Progress in Orthodontics, January 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40510-017-0202-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Min Hwang, Hyo-Won Ahn, Soon-Yong Kwon, Jeong-Ho Choi, Seong-Hun Kim, Gerald Nelson |
| Abstract |
This study was performed to evaluate the treatment effects of the antero-posterior lingual retractor (APLR), focusing on the 3-dimensional (3D) tooth movement of the maxillary anterior teeth and their alveolar bone levels. En masse retraction was performed using either the C-lingual retractor (CLR, C-group, n = 9) or the antero-posterior lingual retractor (APLR, AP-group, n = 8). We evaluated 3D movement of the maxillary anterior teeth and alveolar bone levels, root length of the central incisors, long axes of the maxillary canines, and occlusal plane changes from CBCT images. After retraction, the central incisors were more significantly intruded and their root apex was more retracted in the AP-group. The long axis of the canine was well maintained in the AP-group. There were no differences in the steepness of occlusal plane and the incidence of alveolar bone loss or of root resorption during en masse retraction with the two retractors. The clockwise bowing effect of the anterior segment was less with the APLR, which prevented unwanted canine movement. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| South Africa | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 42 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 11 | 26% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 10% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Unknown | 13 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 25 | 60% |
| Unknown | 17 | 40% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 16 January 2018.
All research outputs
#19,951,180
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Progress in Orthodontics
#159
of 255 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#339,867
of 469,130 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Progress in Orthodontics
#6
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 255 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 469,130 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.