↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Prevention and management of accidental foreign body ingestion and aspiration in orthodontic practice

Overview of attention for article published in Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, May 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (56th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
Title
Prevention and management of accidental foreign body ingestion and aspiration in orthodontic practice
Published in
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, May 2012
DOI 10.2147/tcrm.s30639
Pubmed ID
Authors

Uday Kumar Umesan, Chua, Balakrishnan

Abstract

Among the myriad emergencies that could arise in the dental clinical setting there are a few that occur occasionally despite being entirely preventable. Ingestion or aspiration of dental materials, appliances, or instruments comprises this category. Regardless of incidence, foreign body ingestion or aspiration episodes are recognized as potential complications in the specialty of orthodontics. Despite their infrequent occurrence, the morbidity from a single incident and the amount of specialty medical care that may be needed to manage such incidents is too high to ignore. There is also the associated risk of malpractice litigation given the fact that these incidents are preventable. At present, no clear guidelines exist regarding prevention of this emergency in practice. This article attempts to review relevant literature and aims to formulate certain recommendations based on best available evidence to minimize the incidence of such events, while also suggesting guidelines toward making their management more effective. A flow chart outlining management options and strategies to aid the clinician in the event of such an emergency is also presented.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 5%
Unknown 18 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 4 21%
Researcher 4 21%
Unspecified 3 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 16%
Other 1 5%
Other 4 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 68%
Unspecified 5 26%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 5%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 14 January 2019.
All research outputs
#6,842,341
of 13,218,736 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#368
of 955 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,727
of 121,709 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#5
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,218,736 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 955 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 121,709 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 56% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 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 58% of its contemporaries.