↓ Skip to main content

How frequent does peri-implantitis occur? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Oral Investigations, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 Mendeley
Title
How frequent does peri-implantitis occur? A systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
Clinical Oral Investigations, December 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00784-017-2276-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mia Rakic, Pablo Galindo-Moreno, Alberto Monje, Sandro Radovanovic, Hom-Lay Wang, David Cochran, Anton Sculean, Luigi Canullo

Abstract

The objective of this study is to estimate the overall prevalence of peri-implantitis (PI) and the effect of different study designs, function times, and implant surfaces on prevalence rate reported by the studies adhering to the case definition of Sanz & Chapple 2012. Following electronic and manual searches of the literature published up to February 2016, data were extracted from the studies fitting the study criteria. Meta-analysis was performed for estimation of overall prevalence of PI while the effects of the study design, function time, and implant surface type on prevalence rate were investigated using meta-regression method. Twenty-nine articles were included in this study. The prevalence rate in all subset meta-analyses was always higher at patient level when compared to the prevalence rate at the implant level. Prevalence of PI was 18.5% at the patient level and 12.8% at the implant level. Meta-regression analysis did not identify any association for different study designs and function times while it was demonstrated the significant association between moderately rough surfaces with lower prevalence rate of PI (p = 0.011). The prevalence rate of PI remains highly variable even following restriction to the clinical case definition and it seems to be affected by local factors such as implant surface characteristics. The identification of adjuvant diagnostic markers seems necessary for more accurate disease classification. The occurrence of PI is affected by local factors such as implant surface characteristics hence the careful assessment of the local factors should be performed within treatment planning.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 52 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 15%
Unspecified 7 13%
Student > Postgraduate 5 10%
Student > Bachelor 5 10%
Professor 4 8%
Other 23 44%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 58%
Unspecified 17 33%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Materials Science 2 4%
Social Sciences 1 2%
Other 0 0%

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 09 December 2017.
All research outputs
#7,668,449
of 12,271,192 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Oral Investigations
#277
of 628 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#191,459
of 344,132 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Oral Investigations
#10
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,271,192 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 628 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. 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 344,132 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.