↓ Skip to main content

Dental implants and diabetes mellitus—a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Implant Dentistry, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
121 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
338 Mendeley
Title
Dental implants and diabetes mellitus—a systematic review
Published in
International Journal of Implant Dentistry, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40729-016-0038-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hendrik Naujokat, Burkhard Kunzendorf, Jörg Wiltfang

Abstract

Dental implant surgery has developed to a widely used procedure for dental rehabilitation and is a secure and predictable procedure. Local and systemic risk factors can result in higher failure rates. Diabetes mellitus is a chronic disease that goes in with hyperglycemia and causes multifarious side effects. Diabetes as a relative contraindication for implant surgery is controversially discussed. Because the number of patients suffering from diabetes increases, there are more diabetic patients demanding implant procedures. We aimed to answer the PICO question "Do diabetic patients with dental implants have a higher complication rate in comparison to healthy controls?" by a systematic literature search based on the PRISMA statement. We identified 22 clinical studies and 20 publications of aggregated literature, which were quite heterogeneous concerning methods and results. We conclude that patients with poorly controlled diabetes suffer from impaired osseointegration, elevated risk of peri-implantitis, and higher level of implant failure. The influence of duration of the disease is not fully clear. The supportive administration of antibiotics and chlorhexidine seems to improve implant success. When diabetes is under well control, implant procedures are safe and predictable with a complication rate similar to that of healthy patients.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 338 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 338 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 65 19%
Student > Bachelor 31 9%
Student > Postgraduate 28 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 21 6%
Other 58 17%
Unknown 110 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 167 49%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 2%
Engineering 6 2%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 <1%
Other 23 7%
Unknown 119 35%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 31 August 2016.
All research outputs
#6,331,475
of 20,927,597 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Implant Dentistry
#11
of 91 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#89,596
of 281,535 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Implant Dentistry
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 20,927,597 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 91 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 281,535 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them