↓ Skip to main content

Extraction of primary (baby) teeth for unerupted palatally displaced permanent canine teeth in children

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
11 tweeters

Readers on

mendeley
141 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
Extraction of primary (baby) teeth for unerupted palatally displaced permanent canine teeth in children
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004621.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicola Parkin, Susan Furness, Anwar Shah, Bikram Thind, Zoe Marshman, Gillian Glenroy, Fiona Dyer, Philip E Benson

Abstract

The permanent canine tooth in the maxillary (upper) jaw sometimes does not erupt into the mouth correctly. In about 1% to 3% of the population these teeth will be diverted into the roof of the mouth (palatally). It has been suggested that if the primary canine is removed at the right time this palatal eruption might be avoided. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2009. To evaluate the effect of extracting the primary maxillary canine on the eruption of the palatally ectopic maxillary permanent canine. We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 20 April 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 1), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 20 April 2012) and EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 20 April 2012). There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication. Trials were selected if they met the following criteria: a randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trial, involving the extraction of the deciduous maxillary canine and assessing eruption/non-eruption of the palatally displaced maxillary permanent canine. Data extraction was undertaken independently by two review authors. The primary outcome was the reported prevalence of eruption or non-eruption of the ectopic permanent canine into the mouth following observation or intervention. Results were to be expressed as risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals and mean differences for continuous outcomes. Heterogeneity was to be investigated, including both clinical and methodological factors. Authors of trials were contacted to request unpublished data. Reports of two randomised controlled trials previously excluded from an earlier version of the review due to "deficiencies in reporting, insufficient data" have now been included. These two trials included approximately 128 children, with more than 150 palatally displaced canine teeth, and both were conducted by the same research group. Data presented in the trial reports are either incomplete or inconsistent. Both trials are at high risk of bias. It must be emphasised that both trials have serious deficiencies in the way they were designed, conducted, and reported, and attempts to contact the authors to obtain detailed information and clarify inconsistencies have been unsuccessful. Allocation to treatment appears to be at the level of the individual, but outcomes of successful treatment relate to included teeth and data are not reported for each treatment group. Adverse effects are not reported. Neither trial provides any evidence to guide clinical decision making. There is currently no evidence of the effects of extraction of primary canine teeth in 10-13 year old children with one or two palatally displaced permanent canine teeth.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 141 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Unknown 134 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 34 24%
Student > Master 27 19%
Unspecified 15 11%
Professor 11 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 8%
Other 43 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 109 77%
Unspecified 18 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 5%
Social Sciences 3 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 1%
Other 2 1%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 23 March 2018.
All research outputs
#2,867,018
of 13,190,464 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,378
of 10,519 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#74,004
of 270,758 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#128
of 202 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,190,464 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,519 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.6. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 270,758 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 202 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.