↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: dental implants in zygomatic bone for the rehabilitation of the severely deficient edentulous maxilla

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2013
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 (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

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

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
222 Mendeley
Title
Interventions for replacing missing teeth: dental implants in zygomatic bone for the rehabilitation of the severely deficient edentulous maxilla
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004151.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marco Esposito, Helen V Worthington

Abstract

Dental implants are used for replacing missing teeth. Placing dental implants is limited by the presence of adequate bone volume permitting their anchorage. Several bone augmentation procedures have been developed to solve this problem. Zygomatic implants are long screw-shaped implants developed as a partial or complete alternative to bone augmentation procedures for the severely atrophic maxilla. One to three zygomatic implants can be inserted through the posterior alveolar crest passing through the maxillary sinus, or externally to it, to engage the body of the zygomatic bone. A couple of conventional dental implants may also be needed in the frontal region of the maxilla to stabilise the prosthesis. The potential main advantages of zygomatic implants could be that bone grafting may not be needed and a fixed prosthesis could be fitted sooner. Another specific indication for zygomatic implants could be maxillary reconstruction after maxillectomy in cancer patients.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 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 222 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Unknown 219 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 52 23%
Student > Postgraduate 24 11%
Student > Bachelor 22 10%
Researcher 21 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 9%
Other 42 19%
Unknown 42 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 140 63%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 3%
Psychology 4 2%
Materials Science 3 1%
Other 12 5%
Unknown 50 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 27 January 2019.
All research outputs
#1,119,172
of 17,351,915 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,914
of 11,660 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,417
of 176,562 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#32
of 110 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,351,915 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,660 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 92% 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.