↓ Skip to main content

Interventions for treating traumatised ankylosed permanent front teeth

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
32 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
63 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 treating traumatised ankylosed permanent front teeth
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007820.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Raphael Freitas de Souza, Helen Travess, Tim Newton, Melissa A Marchesan

Abstract

Teeth that have suffered trauma can fuse to the surrounding bone in a process called dental ankylosis. Ankylosed permanent front teeth fail to erupt during facial growth and can become displaced, thus resulting in functional and aesthetic problems. Dental ankylosis is also associated with root resorption, which may eventually lead to the loss of affected teeth. Different interventions for the management of ankylosed permanent front teeth have been described, but it is unclear which are the most effective. To evaluate the effectiveness of any intervention that can be used in the treatment of ankylosed permanent front teeth. The following electronic databases were searched: the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 3 August 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, 2015, Issue 7), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 3 August 2015), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 3 August 2015) and LILACS via BIREME (1982 to 3 August 2015). We searched the US National Institutes of Health Trials Register (http://clinicaltrials.gov) and the WHO Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any intervention for treating displaced ankylosed permanent front teeth in individuals of any age. Treatments could be compared with one another, with placebo or with no treatment. Two independent review authors screened studies independently. Full papers were obtained for potentially relevant trials. Although no study was included, the authors had planned to extract data independently and to analyse the data according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. No randomised controlled trials that met the inclusion criteria were identified. We were unable to identify any reports of randomised controlled trials regarding the efficacy of different treatment options for ankylosed permanent front teeth. The lack of high level evidence for the management of this health problem emphasises the need for well designed clinical trials on this topic, which conform to the CONSORT statement (www.consort-statement.org/).

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 32 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 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 63 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 1 2%
Unknown 62 98%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 1 2%
Unknown 62 98%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 28. 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 February 2019.
All research outputs
#526,249
of 12,620,653 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,808
of 10,380 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,986
of 349,151 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#56
of 212 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,620,653 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,380 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 349,151 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 212 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.