↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: antibiotics at dental implant placement to prevent complications

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
43 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
124 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
437 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 43 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 437 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 430 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 81 19%
Student > Bachelor 49 11%
Student > Postgraduate 42 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 37 8%
Researcher 35 8%
Other 88 20%
Unknown 105 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 240 55%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 3%
Engineering 11 3%
Social Sciences 8 2%
Other 36 8%
Unknown 114 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 43. 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
#780,654
of 22,012,190 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,703
of 12,166 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,544
of 176,921 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#12
of 119 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,012,190 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 12,166 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 176,921 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 119 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 90% of its contemporaries.