↓ Skip to main content

Improvdent: Improving dentures for patient benefit. A crossover randomised clinical trial comparing impression materials for complete dentures

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Oral Health, August 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
124 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
Improvdent: Improving dentures for patient benefit. A crossover randomised clinical trial comparing impression materials for complete dentures
Published in
BMC Oral Health, August 2012
DOI 10.1186/1472-6831-12-37
Pubmed ID
Authors

Janine C Gray, Nuria Navarro-Coy, Sue H Pavitt, Claire Hulme, Mary Godfrey, Helen L Craddock, Paul A Brunton, Sarah Brown, Sean Dillon, Gillian Dukanovic, Catherine Fernandez, Jonathan Wright, Howard Collier, Shirley Swithenbank, Carol Lee, T Paul Hyde

Abstract

According to the UK Adult Dental Health Survey (2009) 15% of adults aged 65-74, 30% aged 75-84 and 47% aged >85 years are edentulous and require complete dentures. Patients' quality of life and nutrition status are affected by poor dentures. The quality of the dental impression is the most important issue for improving the fit and comfort of new dentures. There is paucity of RCT evidence for which impression material is best for complete dentures construction. This study aims to compare two impression materials for effectiveness and cost effectiveness.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 124 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 123 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 19%
Student > Bachelor 14 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 9%
Researcher 7 6%
Other 22 18%
Unknown 35 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 57 46%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Psychology 3 2%
Arts and Humanities 3 2%
Other 14 11%
Unknown 38 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 15 August 2018.
All research outputs
#14,150,222
of 22,675,759 outputs
Outputs from BMC Oral Health
#614
of 1,443 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#99,551
of 170,107 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Oral Health
#6
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,675,759 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,443 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 170,107 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 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 57% of its contemporaries.