↓ Skip to main content

Coronectomy as a surgical approach to impacted mandibular third molars: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Head & Face Medicine, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
56 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
192 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Coronectomy as a surgical approach to impacted mandibular third molars: a systematic review
Published in
Head & Face Medicine, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13005-015-0068-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrea Martin, Giuseppe Perinetti, Fulvia Costantinides, Michele Maglione

Abstract

The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of the surgical technique of coronectomy for third molars extraction in close proximity with the inferior alveolar nerve.A literature survey carried out through PubMed, SCOPUS and the Cochrane Library from inceptions to the last access in January 31, 2014, was performed to intercept randomised clinical trials, controlled clinical trials, prospective cohort studies or retrospective studies (with or without control group) that examined the clinical outcomes after coronectomy. The following variable were evaluated: inferior alveolar nerve injury, lingual nerve injury, postoperative adverse effects, pulp disease, root migration and rate of reoperation. Ten articles qualified for the final analysis. The successful coronectomies varied from a minimum of 61.7% to a maximum of 100%. Coronectomy was associated with a low incidence of complications in terms of inferior alveolar nerve injury (0%-9.5%), lingual nerve injury (0%-2%), postoperative pain (1.1%-41.9%) and swelling (4.6%), dry socket infection (2%-12%), infection rate (1%-9.5%) and pulp disease (0.9%). Migration of the retained roots seems to be a frequent occurrence (2%-85.3%).Coronectomy appears to be a safe procedure at least in the short term, with a reduced incidence of postoperative complications. Therefore, a coronectomy can be indicated for teeth that are very close to the inferior alveolar nerve. If a second operation is needed for the remnant roots, they can be removed with a low risk of paresthesia, because the roots are generally receded from the mandubular nerve.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 192 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Uruguay 1 <1%
Unknown 190 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 43 22%
Student > Bachelor 23 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 6%
Student > Postgraduate 11 6%
Other 31 16%
Unknown 56 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 120 63%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 2%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 1%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 1%
Unspecified 1 <1%
Other 3 2%
Unknown 61 32%
Attention Score in Context

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 28 August 2017.
All research outputs
#17,753,591
of 22,799,071 outputs
Outputs from Head & Face Medicine
#157
of 334 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#180,310
of 264,200 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Head & Face Medicine
#8
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,799,071 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 334 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.1. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 264,200 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.