↓ Skip to main content

Infant oral mutilation – a child protection issue?

Overview of attention for article published in British Dental Journal, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
66 Mendeley
Title
Infant oral mutilation – a child protection issue?
Published in
British Dental Journal, April 2016
DOI 10.1038/sj.bdj.2016.264
Pubmed ID
Authors

S. Girgis, J. Gollings, R. Longhurst, L. Cheng

Abstract

Infant oral mutilation (IOM) is a primitive traditional practice involving the 'gouging out' of an infant's healthy primary tooth germs. This can lead to transmission of blood-borne diseases such as HIV/ AIDS, septicaemia and death. Other complications include eradication and/ or malformation of the child's permanent dentition. IOM is usually performed by village healers in low income countries as an accepted remedy for common childhood illness. The gingival swelling of the unerupted teeth is mistakenly thought to indicate the presence of 'tooth worms'. Crude methods to remove these are employed using unsterile tools. IOM has been reported in many African countries. More recently, some immigrants living in high income countries, such as the UK, have shown signs of IOM. Our aim is to raise awareness among clinicians about the existence of IOM practice being carried out among respective African immigrant groups. We encourage clinicians, particularly those working with paediatric patients to inform parents and carers of children with a history of IOM about the risks and consequences. As part of child safeguarding policies, dental practitioners and health care professionals should intervene if they are aware of any perceived plan that IOM is to be carried out in the future.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 66 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 18%
Student > Bachelor 8 12%
Researcher 6 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 5%
Other 12 18%
Unknown 20 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 8%
Psychology 3 5%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 21 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 March 2017.
All research outputs
#4,113,265
of 22,860,626 outputs
Outputs from British Dental Journal
#1,181
of 6,046 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,829
of 300,802 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Dental Journal
#19
of 99 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,860,626 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,046 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 300,802 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 99 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.