↓ Skip to main content

Diagnosing the most common odontogenic cystic and osseous lesions of the jaws for the practicing pathologist

Overview of attention for article published in Modern Pathology, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
4 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
47 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
109 Mendeley
Title
Diagnosing the most common odontogenic cystic and osseous lesions of the jaws for the practicing pathologist
Published in
Modern Pathology, January 2017
DOI 10.1038/modpathol.2016.191
Pubmed ID
Authors

Robert A Robinson

Abstract

Odontogenic cysts and osseous lesions are often seen as challenging diagnostic lesions but the majority of them are easily classified. This article outlines the diagnostic features required for separating the most common of odontogenic cysts and select osseous lesions of the jaws. Clinical and radiographic findings of these jaw lesions often lead to a differential diagnosis that only the histologic findings will clarify. Dentigerous cyst, keratocystic odontogenic tumor, and certain ameloblastomas that have cystic change, may have identical radiographic findings, with only separation by their specific histologic features leading to the significantly different treatments required for each. Conversely, some cystic lesions can appear histologically identical and cannot be diagnosed without the radiographic findings. Certain osseous lesions of the jaws are particularly problematic for diagnosis without the appropriate radiographic findings, and the diagnosis should probably not be attempted on the histologic findings alone. This article will integrate the necessary clinical, radiographic, and histologic findings required to address the most common odontogenic lesions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 109 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 109 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 17 16%
Student > Master 10 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 9%
Student > Postgraduate 8 7%
Other 7 6%
Other 25 23%
Unknown 32 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 71 65%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 <1%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 31 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 15 March 2022.
All research outputs
#2,707,022
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Modern Pathology
#592
of 3,283 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,328
of 421,660 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Modern Pathology
#21
of 52 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,283 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 421,660 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 52 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 59% of its contemporaries.