↓ Skip to main content

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: 1- versus 2-stage implant placement

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
86 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
Interventions for replacing missing teeth: 1- versus 2-stage implant placement
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006698.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marco Esposito, Maria Gabriella Grusovin, Yun Shane Chew, Paul Coulthard, Helen V Worthington

Abstract

Implants may be placed penetrating the oral mucosa (1-stage procedure) or can be completely buried under the oral mucosa (2-stage procedure) during the healing phase of the bone at the implant surface. With a 2-stage procedure the risk of having unwanted loading onto the implants is minimized, but a second minor surgical intervention is needed to connect the healing abutments and more time is needed prior to start the prosthetic phase because of the wound-healing period required in relation to the second surgical intervention. To evaluate whether a 1-stage implant placement procedure is as effective as a 2-stage procedure. The Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched. Handsearching included several dental journals. Authors of all identified trials, an Internet discussion group and 55 dental implant manufacturers were contacted to find unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The last electronic search was conducted on 21 January 2009. All RCTs of osseointegrated dental implants comparing the same dental implants placed according to 1- versus 2-stage procedures with a minimum follow up of 6 months after loading. Outcome measures were: prosthesis failures, implant failures, marginal bone level changes on intraoral radiographs, patient preference including aesthetics, aesthetics evaluated by dentists, and complications. Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were conducted in duplicate and independently by two review authors. Authors were contacted for missing information. Results were expressed as random-effects models using mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals. Five RCTs were identified and included reporting data on 239 patients in total. On a patient, rather than per implant basis, the meta-analyses showed no statistically significant differences for prosthesis and implant failures, though trends, especially in fully edentulous patients, favoured 2-stage (submerged) implants. The number of patients included in the trials was too small to draw definitive conclusions. The 1-stage approach might be preferable in partially edentulous patients since it avoids one surgical intervention and shortens treatment times, while a 2-stage submerged approach could be indicated when an implant has not obtained an optimal primary stability or when barriers are used for guided tissue regeneration, or when it is expected that removable temporary prostheses could transmit excessive forces on the penetrating abutments especially in fully edentulous patients.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Argentina 1 1%
Unknown 85 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 23%
Student > Postgraduate 15 17%
Researcher 7 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 7%
Other 14 16%
Unknown 17 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 46 53%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Psychology 1 1%
Other 4 5%
Unknown 22 26%

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 10 July 2018.
All research outputs
#11,723,252
of 13,205,256 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#10,202
of 10,522 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#230,949
of 266,918 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#169
of 175 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,205,256 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,522 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 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 266,918 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 175 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.