↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

What is this page? Embed badge

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: dental implants in fresh extraction sockets (immediate, immediate-delayed and delayed implants)

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2010
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 (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
18 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
118 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
300 Mendeley
connotea
1 Connotea
Summary Blogs Twitter Facebook Dimensions citations
Title
Interventions for replacing missing teeth: dental implants in fresh extraction sockets (immediate, immediate-delayed and delayed implants)
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2010
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005968.pub3
Pubmed ID
20824846
Authors

Marco Esposito, Maria Gabriella Grusovin, Ilias P Polyzos, Pietro Felice, Helen V Worthington

Abstract

'Immediate' implants are placed in dental sockets just after tooth extraction. 'Immediate-delayed' implants are those implants inserted after weeks up to about a couple of months to allow for soft tissue healing. 'Delayed' implants are those placed thereafter in partially or completely healed bone. The potential advantages of immediate implants are that treatment time can be shortened and that bone volumes might be partially maintained thus possibly providing good aesthetic results. The potential disadvantages are an increased risk of infection and failures. After implant placement in postextractive sites, gaps can be present between the implant and the bony walls. It is possible to fill these gaps and to augment bone simultaneously to implant placement. There are many techniques to achieve this but it is unclear when augmentation is needed and which could be the best augmentation technique.

View on publisher site

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 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 300 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 295 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 71 24%
Student > Postgraduate 29 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 9%
Student > Bachelor 25 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 19 6%
Other 47 16%
Unknown 81 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 161 54%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 3%
Psychology 8 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 2%
Other 19 6%
Unknown 86 29%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 09 July 2016.
All research outputs
#1,724,669
of 23,566,295 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,921
of 12,743 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,097
of 96,813 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#18
of 82 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,566,295 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,743 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.1. 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 96,813 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 82 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.

This page is hosted by Altmetric on behalf of Cochrane Library.