| Title |
Surgical techniques for the removal of mandibular wisdom teeth
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd004345.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Paul Coulthard, Edmund Bailey, Marco Esposito, Susan Furness, Tara F Renton, Helen V Worthington |
| Abstract |
The surgical removal of mandibular wisdom teeth is one of the most common operations undertaken in oral and maxillofacial surgery. The most common indication for surgery is infection about a partially erupted tooth that is impacted against bone or soft tissues. Other indications include unrestorable caries, pulpal and periapical pathology, fracture of the tooth and cyst development, amongst others. Most commonly the benefits of surgical removal of a wisdom tooth include alleviation of the symptoms and signs of pericoronitis and its potential consequences. However, surgery is frequently associated with postoperative pain, swelling and trismus. Less commonly complications include infection, including dry socket, trigeminal nerve injuries and rarely fracture of the mandible. |
Twitter Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 40 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 9 | 23% |
| Chile | 3 | 8% |
| Canada | 2 | 5% |
| United States | 2 | 5% |
| Spain | 1 | 3% |
| Côte d'Ivoire | 1 | 3% |
| Bolivia, Plurinational State of | 1 | 3% |
| Libya | 1 | 3% |
| Mexico | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 18 | 45% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 29 | 73% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 9 | 23% |
| Scientists | 1 | 3% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 286 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 285 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 56 | 20% |
| Student > Bachelor | 47 | 16% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 27 | 9% |
| Researcher | 24 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 21 | 7% |
| Other | 44 | 15% |
| Unknown | 67 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 159 | 56% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 14 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 2% |
| Psychology | 6 | 2% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 1% |
| Other | 20 | 7% |
| Unknown | 77 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 50. 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 17 May 2019.
All research outputs
#704,692
of 22,759,618 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,443
of 12,314 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,413
of 228,919 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#29
of 238 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,759,618 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 12,314 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 228,919 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 238 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.