| Title |
Interventions for replacing missing teeth: antibiotics at dental implant placement to prevent complications
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd004152.pub4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Marco Esposito, Maria Gabriella Grusovin, Helen V Worthington |
| Abstract |
Some dental implant failures may be due to bacterial contamination at implant insertion. Infections around biomaterials are difficult to treat, and almost all infected implants have to be removed. In general, antibiotic prophylaxis in surgery is only indicated for patients at risk of infectious endocarditis; with reduced host-response; when surgery is performed in infected sites; in cases of extensive and prolonged surgical interventions; and when large foreign materials are implanted. A variety of prophylactic systemic antibiotic regimens have been suggested to minimise infections after dental implant placement. More recent protocols recommended short-term prophylaxis, if antibiotics have to be used. Adverse events may occur with the administration of antibiotics, and can range from diarrhoea to life-threatening allergic reactions. Another major concern associated with the widespread use of antibiotics is the selection of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. The use of prophylactic antibiotics in implant dentistry is controversial. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 42 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 10 | 24% |
| United Kingdom | 7 | 17% |
| Saudi Arabia | 3 | 7% |
| Japan | 1 | 2% |
| Colombia | 1 | 2% |
| Côte d'Ivoire | 1 | 2% |
| Palestine, State of | 1 | 2% |
| Bahrain | 1 | 2% |
| Canada | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 14 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 29 | 69% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 9 | 21% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 5% |
| Scientists | 2 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 487 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Portugal | 2 | <1% |
| India | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| New Zealand | 1 | <1% |
| China | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 480 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 83 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 50 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 45 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 40 | 8% |
| Researcher | 36 | 7% |
| Other | 95 | 20% |
| Unknown | 138 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 250 | 51% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 16 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 13 | 3% |
| Engineering | 10 | 2% |
| Social Sciences | 9 | 2% |
| Other | 39 | 8% |
| Unknown | 150 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 42. 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 13 September 2021.
All research outputs
#941,032
of 24,764,450 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,922
of 12,971 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,748
of 203,814 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#39
of 263 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,764,450 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,971 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 203,814 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 263 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.