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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Influence of different post-interventional maintenance concepts on periodontal outcomes: an evaluation of three systematic reviews
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Oral Health, July 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12903-016-0244-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Stefanie J. Gartenmann, Iris Dörig, Philipp Sahrmann, Ulrike Held, Clemens Walter, Patrick R. Schmidlin |
| Abstract |
To selectively review the existing literature on post-interventional maintenance protocols in patients with periodontal disease receiving either non-surgical or surgical periodontal treatment. Three systematic reviews with different periodontal interventions, i.e. scaling and root planing (SRP), SRP with adjunctive antibiotics or regenerative periodontal surgery were evaluated focusing on their post-interventional maintenance care. Due to the early publication of one review an additional literature search update was undertaken. The search was executed for studies published from January 2001 till March 2015 through an electronic database to ensure the inclusion of resent studies on SRP. Two reviewers guided the study selection and assessed the validity of the three reviews found. Within the group of scaling and root planing alone there have been nine studies with more than three appointments for maintenance care and five studies with more than two appointments in the first 2 months after the intervention. Chlorhexidine was the most frequently used antiseptic agent used for 2 weeks after non-surgical intervention. Scaling and root planing with adjunctive antibiotics showed a similar number of visits with professional biofilm debridement, whereas regenerative studies displayed more studies with more than three visits in the intervention group. In addition, the use of antiseptics was longer and lasted 4 to 8 weeks after the regenerative intervention. The latter studies also showed more stringent maintenance protocols. With increased interventional effort there was a greater tendency to increase frequency and duration of the maintenance care program and antiseptic agents. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 59 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 14% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 8 | 14% |
| Unknown | 18 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 32 | 54% |
| Arts and Humanities | 2 | 3% |
| Psychology | 2 | 3% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 2% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 3% |
| Unknown | 19 | 32% |
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 20 July 2016.
All research outputs
#18,466,238
of 22,881,154 outputs
Outputs from BMC Oral Health
#998
of 1,475 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#279,112
of 363,150 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Oral Health
#20
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,881,154 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,475 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 363,150 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.