↓ Skip to main content

“I Hope I Get Movie-star Teeth”: Doing the Exceptional Normal in Orthodontic Practice for Young People

Overview of attention for article published in Medical Anthropology Quarterly, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
20 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
“I Hope I Get Movie-star Teeth”: Doing the Exceptional Normal in Orthodontic Practice for Young People
Published in
Medical Anthropology Quarterly, February 2016
DOI 10.1111/maq.12247
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anette Wickström

Abstract

Orthodontics offer young people the chance to improve their bite and adjust their appearances. The most common reasons for orthodontic treatment concern general dentists', parents' or children's dissatisfaction with the esthetics of the bite. My aim is to analyze how esthetic norms are used during three activities preceding possible treatment with fixed appliances. The evaluation indexes signal definitiveness and are the essential grounds for decision-making. In parallel, practitioners and patients refer to self-perceived satisfaction with appearances. Visualizations of divergences and the improved future bite become part of an interactive process that upholds what I conceptualize as "the exceptional normal." Insights into this process contribute to a better understanding of how medical practices intended to measure and safeguard children's and young people's health at the same time mobilize patients to look and feel better. The article is based on an ethnographic study at two orthodontic clinics.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 20 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 20%
Student > Master 3 15%
Researcher 3 15%
Librarian 2 10%
Student > Postgraduate 2 10%
Other 6 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 35%
Social Sciences 6 30%
Unspecified 3 15%
Arts and Humanities 2 10%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 5%
Other 1 5%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 30 October 2016.
All research outputs
#1,103,514
of 12,546,249 outputs
Outputs from Medical Anthropology Quarterly
#125
of 541 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,658
of 334,070 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medical Anthropology Quarterly
#13
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,546,249 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 541 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 334,070 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 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 56% of its contemporaries.