↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Enamel matrix derivative (Emdogain®) for periodontal tissue regeneration in intrabony defects

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2009
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 (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
15 tweeters
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
201 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
198 Mendeley
Title
Enamel matrix derivative (Emdogain®) for periodontal tissue regeneration in intrabony defects
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2009
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003875.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marco Esposito, Maria Gabriella Grusovin, Nikolaos Papanikolaou, Paul Coulthard, Helen V Worthington

Abstract

Periodontitis is a chronic infective disease of the gums caused by bacteria present in dental plaque. This condition induces the breakdown of the tooth supporting apparatus until teeth are lost. Surgery may be indicated to arrest disease progression and regenerate lost tissues. Several surgical techniques have been developed to regenerate periodontal tissues including guided tissue regeneration (GTR), bone grafting (BG) and the use of enamel matrix derivative (EMD). EMD is an extract of enamel matrix and contains amelogenins of various molecular weights. Amelogenins are involved in the formation of enamel and periodontal attachment formation during tooth development.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 198 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 191 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 34 17%
Researcher 30 15%
Student > Postgraduate 24 12%
Student > Bachelor 19 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 9%
Other 43 22%
Unknown 30 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 127 64%
Social Sciences 7 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 3%
Chemistry 3 2%
Other 16 8%
Unknown 35 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 30 January 2019.
All research outputs
#1,089,259
of 17,125,476 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,883
of 11,627 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,090
of 130,072 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#13
of 117 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,125,476 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,627 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 130,072 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 117 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.