↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Interventions for managing relapse of the lower front teeth after orthodontic treatment

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 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 (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
31 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
213 Mendeley
Title
Interventions for managing relapse of the lower front teeth after orthodontic treatment
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008734.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yongchun Yu, Jie Sun, Wenli Lai, Taixiang Wu, Stephen Koshy, Zongdao Shi

Abstract

Orthodontic relapse can be defined as the tendency for teeth to return to their pre-treatment position, and this occurs especially in lower front teeth (lower canines and lower incisors). Retention, to maintain the position of corrected teeth, has become one of the most important phases of orthodontic treatment. However, 10 years after the completion of orthodontic treatment, only 30% to 50% of orthodontic patients effectively retain the satisfactory alignment initially obtained. After 20 years, satisfactory alignment reduces to 10%. When relapse occurs, simple effective strategies are required to effectively manage the problem. The periodontal, physiological or psychological conditions may be different from those before orthodontic treatment, so re-treatment methods may also need to be different.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 31 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 213 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%
Unknown 211 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 49 23%
Student > Postgraduate 30 14%
Student > Bachelor 21 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 17 8%
Researcher 17 8%
Other 29 14%
Unknown 50 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 114 54%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 4%
Social Sciences 7 3%
Psychology 5 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 2%
Other 15 7%
Unknown 59 28%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 29. 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 28 August 2019.
All research outputs
#825,569
of 17,353,889 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,147
of 11,661 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,317
of 176,562 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#23
of 110 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,353,889 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,661 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 176,562 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 110 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.