↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Treatments for adults with prominent lower front teeth

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
63 Mendeley
Title
Treatments for adults with prominent lower front teeth
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006963.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hideko Minami-Sugaya, Débora A Lentini-Oliveira, Fernando R Carvalho, Marco Antonio C Machado, Clóvis Marzola, Humberto Saconato, Gilmar F Prado

Abstract

Prominent lower front teeth may be associated with a large or prognathic lower jaw (mandible) or a small or retrusive upper jaw (maxilla). Edward Angle, who may be considered the father of modern orthodontics, classified the malocclusion in this situation as Class III. The individual is described as having a negative or reverse overjet as the lower front teeth are more prominent than the upper front teeth. The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate different treatments of Angle Class III malocclusion in adults. The following databases were searched: Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 22 March 2012); CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 1); MEDLINE via OVID (1950 to 22 March 2012); EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 22 March 2012); LILACs (1982 to 22 March 2012); BBO (1986 to 22 March 2012); and SciELO (1997 to 22 March 2012). All randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials of treatments for adults with an Angle Class III malocclusion were included. Three review authors independently assessed the eligibility of the identified reports. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies. The mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were calculated for continuous data. Two randomized controlled trials were included in this review. There are different types of surgery for this type of malocclusion but only trials of mandible reduction surgery were identified. One trial compared intraoral vertical ramus osteotomy (IVRO) with sagittal split ramus osteotomy (SSRO) and the other trial compared vertical ramus osteotomy (VRO) with and without osteosynthesis. Neither trial found any difference between the two treatments. The trials did not provide adequate data for assessing effectiveness of the techniques described. There is insufficient evidence from the two included trials, to conclude that one procedure is better or worse than another. The included trials compared different interventions and were at high risk of bias and therefore no implications for practice can be given. Further high quality randomized controlled trials with long term follow-up are required.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 2%
Italy 1 2%
Egypt 1 2%
Unknown 60 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 17%
Student > Master 9 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 11%
Student > Bachelor 5 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Other 12 19%
Unknown 15 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 48%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 5%
Social Sciences 3 5%
Psychology 2 3%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 18 29%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 10 July 2018.
All research outputs
#11,723,252
of 13,205,256 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#10,202
of 10,522 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#230,949
of 266,918 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#169
of 175 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,205,256 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,522 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 266,918 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 175 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.