↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: management of soft tissues for dental implants

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 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 (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
8 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
248 Mendeley
Title
Interventions for replacing missing teeth: management of soft tissues for dental implants
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006697.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marco Esposito, Hassan Maghaireh, Maria Gabriella Grusovin, Ioannis Ziounas, Helen V Worthington

Abstract

Dental implants are usually placed by elevating a soft tissue flap, but in some instances, they can also be placed flapless reducing patient discomfort. Several flap designs and suturing techniques have been proposed. Soft tissues are often manipulated and augmented for aesthetic reasons. It is often recommended that implants are surrounded by a sufficient width of attached/keratinised mucosa to improve their long-term prognosis.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 248 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 245 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 53 21%
Student > Bachelor 33 13%
Student > Postgraduate 26 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 23 9%
Other 45 18%
Unknown 44 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 151 61%
Psychology 9 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 2%
Materials Science 4 2%
Other 17 7%
Unknown 53 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 11 February 2020.
All research outputs
#1,433,274
of 17,572,152 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,612
of 11,713 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,517
of 130,931 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#22
of 119 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,572,152 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,713 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 130,931 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 119 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.