| Title |
Recent advances in dental implants
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, November 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40902-017-0132-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Do Gia Khang Hong, Ji-hyeon Oh |
| Abstract |
Dental implants are a common treatment for the loss of teeth. This paper summarizes current knowledge on implant surfaces, immediate loading versus conventional loading, short implants, sinus lifting, and custom implants using three-dimensional printing. Most of the implant surface modifications showed good osseointegration results. Regarding biomolecular coatings, which have been recently developed and studied, good results were observed in animal experiments. Immediate loading had similar clinical outcomes compared to conventional loading and can be used as a successful treatment because it has the advantage of reducing treatment times and providing early function and aesthetics. Short implants showed similar clinical outcomes compared to standard implants. A variety of sinus augmentation techniques, grafting materials, and alternative techniques, such as tilted implants, zygomatic implants, and short implants, can be used. With the development of new technologies in three-dimension and computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) customized implants can be used as an alternative to conventional implant designs. However, there are limitations due to the lack of long-term studies or clinical studies. A long-term clinical trial and a more predictive study are needed. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 300 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 49 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 34 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 19 | 6% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 16 | 5% |
| Researcher | 15 | 5% |
| Other | 42 | 14% |
| Unknown | 125 | 42% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 108 | 36% |
| Engineering | 21 | 7% |
| Materials Science | 14 | 5% |
| Unspecified | 6 | 2% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 1% |
| Other | 15 | 5% |
| Unknown | 132 | 44% |
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 30 April 2018.
All research outputs
#22,764,772
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
#55
of 82 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#300,398
of 342,118 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
#3
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 82 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 342,118 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.