| Title |
Interventions for replacing missing teeth: 1‐ versus 2‐stage implant placement
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2009
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd006698.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Marco Esposito, Maria Gabriella Grusovin, Yun Shane Chew, Paul Coulthard, Helen V Worthington |
| Abstract |
Implants may be placed penetrating the oral mucosa (1-stage procedure) or can be completely buried under the oral mucosa (2-stage procedure) during the healing phase of the bone at the implant surface. With a 2-stage procedure the risk of having unwanted loading onto the implants is minimized, but a second minor surgical intervention is needed to connect the healing abutments and more time is needed prior to start the prosthetic phase because of the wound-healing period required in relation to the second surgical intervention. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 | 1 | 14% |
| Mexico | 1 | 14% |
| Côte d'Ivoire | 1 | 14% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 14% |
| United States | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 2 | 29% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 86% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 154 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 2 | 1% |
| China | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 150 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 37 | 24% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 18 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 18 | 12% |
| Researcher | 14 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 8% |
| Other | 27 | 18% |
| Unknown | 28 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 105 | 68% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 2% |
| Materials Science | 3 | 2% |
| Psychology | 2 | 1% |
| Other | 3 | 2% |
| Unknown | 32 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 24 April 2015.
All research outputs
#7,054,638
of 25,543,275 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,659
of 13,150 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,622
of 122,126 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#37
of 70 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,543,275 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,150 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.7. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 122,126 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 70 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.