↓ Skip to main content

Developmental Structural Tooth Defects in Dogs – Experience From Veterinary Dental Referral Practice and Review of the Literature

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 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 (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
81 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
Developmental Structural Tooth Defects in Dogs – Experience From Veterinary Dental Referral Practice and Review of the Literature
Published in
Frontiers in Veterinary Science, February 2016
DOI 10.3389/fvets.2016.00009
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sonja Boy, David Crossley, Gerhard Steenkamp

Abstract

Developmental tooth abnormalities in dogs are uncommon in general veterinary practice but understanding thereof is important for optimal management in order to maintain masticatory function through preservation of the dentition. The purpose of this review is to discuss clinical abnormalities of the enamel and general anatomy of dog teeth encountered in veterinary dental referral practice and described in the literature. More than 900 referral cases are seen annually between the two referral practices. The basis of the pathogenesis, resultant clinical appearance, and the principles of management for each anomaly will be described. Future research should be aimed toward a more detailed analysis of these conditions so rarely described in the literature.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users 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 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 81 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 10 12%
Student > Master 9 11%
Researcher 8 10%
Student > Postgraduate 8 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 6%
Other 18 22%
Unknown 23 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 31 38%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 16%
Unspecified 4 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Arts and Humanities 2 2%
Other 8 10%
Unknown 20 25%
Attention Score in Context

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 24 May 2019.
All research outputs
#2,608,758
of 22,844,985 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Veterinary Science
#456
of 6,223 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,618
of 398,933 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Veterinary Science
#4
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,844,985 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,223 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 398,933 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.