↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: augmentation procedures of the maxillary sinus

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
113 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
97 Mendeley
Title
Interventions for replacing missing teeth: augmentation procedures of the maxillary sinus
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2010
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008397
Pubmed ID
Authors

Esposito M, Grusovin MG, Rees J, Karasoulos D, Felice P, Alissa R, Worthington HV, Coulthard P, Esposito, Marco, Grusovin, Maria Gabriella, Rees, Jonathan, Karasoulos, Dimitrios, Felice, Pietro, Alissa, Rami, Worthington, Helen V, Coulthard, Paul

Abstract

Insufficient bone volume is a common problem encountered in the rehabilitation of the edentulous posterior maxillae with implant-supported prostheses. Bone volume is limited by the presence of the maxillary sinus together with loss of alveolar bone height. Sinus lift procedures increase bone volume by augmenting the sinus cavity with autogenous bone and/or commercially available biomaterials.

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 97 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 1%
Italy 1 1%
India 1 1%
Spain 1 1%
Greece 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 91 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 16 16%
Student > Master 15 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 11%
Researcher 9 9%
Student > Bachelor 9 9%
Other 19 20%
Unknown 18 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 72 74%
Social Sciences 1 1%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 1%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 1%
Chemistry 1 1%
Other 1 1%
Unknown 20 21%

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 22 January 2013.
All research outputs
#7,188,547
of 12,100,779 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,035
of 7,978 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#143,863
of 290,000 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#320
of 413 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,100,779 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,978 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 290,000 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 413 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.