↓ Skip to main content

Enamel matrix derivative (Emdogain®) for periodontal tissue regeneration in intrabony defects

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2009
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 (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
16 tweeters
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
182 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
135 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
Enamel matrix derivative (Emdogain®) for periodontal tissue regeneration in intrabony defects
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2009
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003875.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marco Esposito, Maria Gabriella Grusovin, Nikolaos Papanikolaou, Paul Coulthard, Helen V Worthington

Abstract

Periodontitis is a chronic infective disease of the gums caused by bacteria present in dental plaque. This condition induces the breakdown of the tooth supporting apparatus until teeth are lost. Surgery may be indicated to arrest disease progression and regenerate lost tissues. Several surgical techniques have been developed to regenerate periodontal tissues including guided tissue regeneration (GTR), bone grafting (BG) and the use of enamel matrix derivative (EMD). EMD is an extract of enamel matrix and contains amelogenins of various molecular weights. Amelogenins are involved in the formation of enamel and periodontal attachment formation during tooth development.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 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 135 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 128 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 18%
Researcher 21 16%
Student > Postgraduate 18 13%
Student > Bachelor 12 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 9%
Other 32 24%
Unknown 16 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 90 67%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 2%
Social Sciences 3 2%
Chemistry 3 2%
Other 12 9%
Unknown 21 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. 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 January 2019.
All research outputs
#798,913
of 14,212,940 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,433
of 10,887 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,997
of 121,341 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#10
of 125 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,212,940 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,887 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 121,341 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 125 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.