↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: treatment of peri‐implantitis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2012
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 (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
16 X users
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
154 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
393 Mendeley
Title
Interventions for replacing missing teeth: treatment of peri‐implantitis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004970.pub5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marco Esposito, Maria Gabriella Grusovin, Helen V Worthington

Abstract

One of the key factors for the long-term success of oral implants is the maintenance of healthy tissues around them. Bacterial plaque accumulation induces inflammatory changes in the soft tissues surrounding oral implants and it may lead to their progressive destruction (peri-implantitis) and ultimately to implant failure. Different treatment strategies for peri-implantitis have been suggested, however it is unclear which are the most effective.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 393 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 2 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
China 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 385 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 70 18%
Student > Postgraduate 46 12%
Student > Bachelor 41 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 32 8%
Researcher 31 8%
Other 69 18%
Unknown 104 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 227 58%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 2%
Psychology 6 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 1%
Other 23 6%
Unknown 116 30%
Attention Score in Context

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 13 September 2021.
All research outputs
#1,342,720
of 25,543,275 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,865
of 13,150 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,682
of 252,131 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#33
of 237 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,543,275 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 252,131 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 237 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.