Example of Clinical Oral Implants Research format
Recent searches

Example of Clinical Oral Implants Research format Example of Clinical Oral Implants Research format Example of Clinical Oral Implants Research format Example of Clinical Oral Implants Research format Example of Clinical Oral Implants Research format Example of Clinical Oral Implants Research format Example of Clinical Oral Implants Research format
Sample paper formatted on SciSpace - SciSpace
This content is only for preview purposes. The original open access content can be found here.
Look Inside
Example of Clinical Oral Implants Research format Example of Clinical Oral Implants Research format Example of Clinical Oral Implants Research format Example of Clinical Oral Implants Research format Example of Clinical Oral Implants Research format Example of Clinical Oral Implants Research format Example of Clinical Oral Implants Research format
Sample paper formatted on SciSpace - SciSpace
This content is only for preview purposes. The original open access content can be found here.
open access Open Access
recommended Recommended

Clinical Oral Implants Research — Template for authors

Publisher: Wiley
Categories Rank Trend in last 3 yrs
Oral Surgery #1 of 49 up up by 1 rank
journal-quality-icon Journal quality:
High
calendar-icon Last 4 years overview: 655 Published Papers | 5618 Citations
indexed-in-icon Indexed in: Scopus
last-updated-icon Last updated: 07/07/2020
Related journals
Insights
General info
Top papers
Popular templates
Get started guide
Why choose from SciSpace
FAQ

Related Journals

open access Open Access
recommended Recommended

Elsevier

Quality:  
High
CiteRatio: 6.8
SJR: 1.623
SNIP: 1.647
open access Open Access
recommended Recommended

Elsevier

Quality:  
High
CiteRatio: 5.4
SJR: 1.227
SNIP: 2.03
open access Open Access

Elsevier

Quality:  
High
CiteRatio: 3.1
SJR: 0.664
SNIP: 1.265
open access Open Access

Medknow

Quality:  
Good
CiteRatio: 2.3
SJR: 0.289
SNIP: 1.104

Journal Performance & Insights

Impact Factor

CiteRatio

Determines the importance of a journal by taking a measure of frequency with which the average article in a journal has been cited in a particular year.

A measure of average citations received per peer-reviewed paper published in the journal.

3.723

3% from 2018

Impact factor for Clinical Oral Implants Research from 2016 - 2019
Year Value
2019 3.723
2018 3.825
2017 4.305
2016 3.624
graph view Graph view
table view Table view

8.6

15% from 2019

CiteRatio for Clinical Oral Implants Research from 2016 - 2020
Year Value
2020 8.6
2019 7.5
2018 7.3
2017 6.9
2016 6.8
graph view Graph view
table view Table view

insights Insights

  • Impact factor of this journal has decreased by 3% in last year.
  • This journal’s impact factor is in the top 10 percentile category.

insights Insights

  • CiteRatio of this journal has increased by 15% in last years.
  • This journal’s CiteRatio is in the top 10 percentile category.

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR)

Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP)

Measures weighted citations received by the journal. Citation weighting depends on the categories and prestige of the citing journal.

Measures actual citations received relative to citations expected for the journal's category.

2.407

9% from 2019

SJR for Clinical Oral Implants Research from 2016 - 2020
Year Value
2020 2.407
2019 2.202
2018 2.344
2017 2.462
2016 2.426
graph view Graph view
table view Table view

2.045

19% from 2019

SNIP for Clinical Oral Implants Research from 2016 - 2020
Year Value
2020 2.045
2019 1.724
2018 1.752
2017 1.894
2016 1.931
graph view Graph view
table view Table view

insights Insights

  • SJR of this journal has increased by 9% in last years.
  • This journal’s SJR is in the top 10 percentile category.

insights Insights

  • SNIP of this journal has increased by 19% in last years.
  • This journal’s SNIP is in the top 10 percentile category.
Clinical Oral Implants Research

Guideline source: View

All company, product and service names used in this website are for identification purposes only. All product names, trademarks and registered trademarks are property of their respective owners.

Use of these names, trademarks and brands does not imply endorsement or affiliation. Disclaimer Notice

Wiley

Clinical Oral Implants Research

Clinical Oral Implants Research conveys scientific progress in the field of implant dentistry and its related areas to clinicians, teachers and researchers concerned with the application of this information for the benefit of patients in need of oral implants.... Read More

Oral Surgery

Dentistry

i
Last updated on
07 Jul 2020
i
ISSN
0905-7161
i
Impact Factor
High - 1.854
i
Open Access
Yes
i
Sherpa RoMEO Archiving Policy
Yellow faq
i
Plagiarism Check
Available via Turnitin
i
Endnote Style
Download Available
i
Bibliography Name
apa
i
Citation Type
Author Year
(Blonder et al., 1982)
i
Bibliography Example
Blonder, G. E., Tinkham, M., & Klapwijk, T. M. (1982). Transition from metallic to tunneling regimes in superconducting microconstrictions: Excess current, charge imbalance, and supercurrent conversion. Phys. Rev. B, 25(7), 4515–4532.

Top papers written in this journal

Journal Article DOI: 10.1034/J.1600-0501.1997.080302.X
Long-term evaluation of non-submerged ITI implants. Part 1: 8-year life table analysis of a prospective multi-center study with 2359 implants.

Abstract:

In the present multi-center study. non-submerged ITI implants were prospectively followed to evaluate their long-term prognosis in fully and partially edentulous patients. In a total of 1003 patients, 2359 implants were consecutively inserted. Following a healing period of 3–6 months, the successfully integrated implants were... In the present multi-center study. non-submerged ITI implants were prospectively followed to evaluate their long-term prognosis in fully and partially edentulous patients. In a total of 1003 patients, 2359 implants were consecutively inserted. Following a healing period of 3–6 months, the successfully integrated implants were restored with 393 removable and 758 fixed restorations. Subsequently, all consecutive implants were documented annually up to 8 years. At each examination, the clinical status of all implants was evaluated according to predefined criteria of success. Therefore, the data base allowed the evaluation of 8-year cumulative survival and success rates for 2359 implants. In addition, cumulative success rates were calculated for implant subgroups divided per implant type, implant length. and implant location. Furthermore, the actual 5-year survival and success rates could be determined for 488 implants. During the healing period, 13 implants did not successfully integrate, whereas 2346 implants fulfilled the predefined criteria of success. This corresponds with an early failure rate of 0.55%. During follow-up, 19 implants were classified as failures due to several reasons. In addition, 17 implants (= 0.8%) demonstrated at the last annual examination a suppurative periimplant infection. Including 127 drop out implants (= 5.4% drop out rate) into the calculation, the 8-year cumulative survival and success rates resulted in 96.7% and 93.3%, respectively. The analysis of implant subgroups showed slightly more favorable cumulative success rates for screw type implants (> 95%) compared to hollow-cylinder implants (91.3%). and clearly better success rates for mandibular implants (= 95%) when compared to maxillary implants (= 87%). The actual 5-year survival and success rates of 488 implants with 98.2% and 97.3%. respectively, were slightly better than the estimated 5-year cumulative survival and success rates of 2359 implants indicating that the applied life table analysis is a reliable statistical method to evaluate the long-term prognosis of dental implants. It can be concluded that non-submerged ITI implants maintain success rates well above 90% in different clinical centers for observation periods up to 8 years. read more read less

Topics:

Implant (60%)60% related to the paper, Osseointegration (55%)55% related to the paper
1,206 Citations
Journal Article DOI: 10.1111/J.1600-0501.2009.01775.X
Effects of titanium surface topography on bone integration: a systematic review
Ann Wennerberg1, Tomas Albrektsson2

Abstract:

European Association for Osseointegration; 19-22 February 2009, Pfaffikon, Switzerland; 2nd Consensus Conference
1,187 Citations
open accessOpen access Journal Article DOI: 10.1111/J.1600-0501.2006.01353.X
Effect of material characteristics and/or surface topography on biofilm development
Wim Teughels1, Nele Van Assche1, I. Sliepen1, Marc Quirynen1

Abstract:

Background: From an ecological viewpoint, the oral cavity, in fact the oro-pharynx, is an ‘open growth system’. It undergoes an uninterrupted introduction and removal of both microorganisms and nutrients. In order to survive within the oro-pharyngeal area, bacteria need to adhere either to the soft or hard tissues in order to... Background: From an ecological viewpoint, the oral cavity, in fact the oro-pharynx, is an ‘open growth system’. It undergoes an uninterrupted introduction and removal of both microorganisms and nutrients. In order to survive within the oro-pharyngeal area, bacteria need to adhere either to the soft or hard tissues in order to resist shear forces. The fast turn-over of the oral lining epithelia (shedding 3 ×/day) is an efficient defence mechanism as it prevents the accumulation of large masses of microorganisms. Teeth, dentures, or endosseous implants, however, providing non-shedding surfaces, allow the formation of thick biofilms. In general, the established biofilm maintains an equilibrium with the host. An uncontrolled accumulation and/or metabolism of bacteria on the hard surfaces forms, however, the primary cause of dental caries, gingivitis, periodontitis, peri-implantitis, and stomatitis. Objectives: This systematic review aimed to evaluate critically the impact of surface characteristics (free energy, roughness, chemistry) on the de novo biofilm formation, especially in the supragingival and to a lesser extent in the subgingival areas. Methods: An electronic Medline search (from 1966 until July 2005) was conducted applying the following search items: ‘biofilm formation and dental/oral implants/surface characteristics’, ‘surface characteristics and implants’, ‘biofilm formation and oral’, ‘plaque/biofilm and roughness’, ‘plaque/biofilm and surface free energy’, and ‘plaque formation and implants’. Only clinical studies within the oro-pharyngeal area were included. Results: From a series of split-mouth studies, it could be concluded that both an increase in surface roughness above the Ra threshold of 0.2 μm and/or of the surface-free energy facilitates biofilm formation on restorative materials. When both surface characteristics interact with each other, surface roughness was found to be predominant. The biofilm formation is also influenced by the type (chemical composition) of biomaterial or the type of coating. Direct comparisons in biofilm formation on different transmucosal implant surfaces are scars. Conclusions: Extrapolation of data from studies on different restorative materials seems to indicate that transmucosal implant surfaces with a higher surface roughness/surface free energy facilitate biofilm formation. read more read less

Topics:

Dental plaque (59%)59% related to the paper, Biofilm (57%)57% related to the paper, Dental pellicle (51%)51% related to the paper
1,092 Citations
open accessOpen access Journal Article DOI: 10.1111/J.1600-0501.2007.01453.X
A systematic review of the 5-year survival and complication rates of implant-supported single crowns
Ronald E. Jung1, Bjarni E. Pjetursson2, Roland Glauser, Anja Zembic1, Marcel Zwahlen2, Niklaus P. Lang2

Abstract:

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this systematic review was to assess the 5-year survival of implant-supported single crowns (SCs) and to describe the incidence of biological and technical complications. METHODS: An electronic MEDLINE search complemented by manual searching was conducted to identify prospective and retrospective ... OBJECTIVES: The objective of this systematic review was to assess the 5-year survival of implant-supported single crowns (SCs) and to describe the incidence of biological and technical complications. METHODS: An electronic MEDLINE search complemented by manual searching was conducted to identify prospective and retrospective cohort studies on SCs with a mean follow-up time of at least 5 years. Failure and complication rates were analyzed using random-effects Poisson's regression models to obtain summary estimates of 5-year proportions. RESULTS: Twenty-six studies from an initial yield of 3601 titles were finally selected and data were extracted. In a meta-analysis of these studies, survival of implants supporting SCs was 96.8% [95% confidence interval (CI): 95.9-97.6%] after 5 years. The survival rate of SCs supported by implants was 94.5% (95% CI: 92.5-95.9%) after 5 years of function. The survival rate of metal-ceramic crowns, 95.4% (95% CI: 93.6-96.7%), was significantly (P=0.005) higher than the survival rate, 91.2% (95% CI: 86.8-94.2%), of all-ceramic crowns. Peri-implantitis and soft tissue complications occurred adjacent to 9.7% of the SCs and 6.3% of the implants had bone loss exceeding 2 mm over the 5-year observation period. The cumulative incidence of implant fractures after 5 years was 0.14%. After 5 years, the cumulative incidence of screw or abutment loosening was 12.7% and 0.35% for screw or abutment fracture. For supra-structure-related complications, the cumulative incidence of ceramic or veneer fractures was 4.5%. CONCLUSION: It can be concluded that after an observation period of 5 years, high survival rates for implants and implant-supported SCs can be expected. However, biological and particularly technical complications are frequent. read more read less

Topics:

Survival rate (55%)55% related to the paper, Cumulative incidence (54%)54% related to the paper
View PDF
898 Citations
Journal Article DOI: 10.1111/J.1600-0501.2004.01119.X
A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of fixed partial dentures (FPDs) after an observation period of at least 5 years

Abstract:

The present study was done to determine the long-term success and survival of fixed partial dentures (FPDs) and to evaluate the risks for failures due to specific biological and technical complications. A MEDLINE search (PubMed) from 1966 up to March 2004 was conducted, as well as hand searching of bibliographies from relevan... The present study was done to determine the long-term success and survival of fixed partial dentures (FPDs) and to evaluate the risks for failures due to specific biological and technical complications. A MEDLINE search (PubMed) from 1966 up to March 2004 was conducted, as well as hand searching of bibliographies from relevant articles. Nineteen studies from an initial yield of 3658 titles were finally selected and data were extracted independently by three reviewers. Prospective and retrospective cohort studies with a mean follow-up time of at least 5 years in which patients had been examined clinically at the follow-up visits were included in the meta-analysis. Publications only based on patients records, questionnaires or interviews were excluded. Survival of the FPDs was analyzed according to in situ and intact failure risks. Specific biological and technical complications such as caries, loss of vitality and periodontal disease recurrence as well as loss of retention, loss of vitality, tooth and material fractures were also analyzed. The 10-year probability of survival for fixed partial dentures was 89.1% (95% confidence interval (CI): 81-93.8%) while the probability of success was 71.1% (95% CI: 47.7-85.2%). The 10-year risk for caries and periodontitis leading to FPD loss was 2.6% and 0.7%, respectively. The 10-year risk for loss of retention was 6.4%, for abutment fracture 2.1% and for material fractures 3.2%. read more read less

Topics:

Retrospective cohort study (50%)50% related to the paper
810 Citations
Author Pic

SciSpace is a very innovative solution to the formatting problem and existing providers, such as Mendeley or Word did not really evolve in recent years.

- Andreas Frutiger, Researcher, ETH Zurich, Institute for Biomedical Engineering

Get MS-Word and LaTeX output to any Journal within seconds
1
Choose a template
Select a template from a library of 40,000+ templates
2
Import a MS-Word file or start fresh
It takes only few seconds to import
3
View and edit your final output
SciSpace will automatically format your output to meet journal guidelines
4
Submit directly or Download
Submit to journal directly or Download in PDF, MS Word or LaTeX

(Before submission check for plagiarism via Turnitin)

clock Less than 3 minutes

What to expect from SciSpace?

Speed and accuracy over MS Word

''

With SciSpace, you do not need a word template for Clinical Oral Implants Research.

It automatically formats your research paper to Wiley formatting guidelines and citation style.

You can download a submission ready research paper in pdf, LaTeX and docx formats.

Time comparison

Time taken to format a paper and Compliance with guidelines

Plagiarism Reports via Turnitin

SciSpace has partnered with Turnitin, the leading provider of Plagiarism Check software.

Using this service, researchers can compare submissions against more than 170 million scholarly articles, a database of 70+ billion current and archived web pages. How Turnitin Integration works?

Turnitin Stats
Publisher Logos

Freedom from formatting guidelines

One editor, 100K journal formats – world's largest collection of journal templates

With such a huge verified library, what you need is already there.

publisher-logos

Easy support from all your favorite tools

Clinical Oral Implants Research format uses apa citation style.

Automatically format and order your citations and bibliography in a click.

SciSpace allows imports from all reference managers like Mendeley, Zotero, Endnote, Google Scholar etc.

Frequently asked questions

1. Can I write Clinical Oral Implants Research in LaTeX?

Absolutely not! Our tool has been designed to help you focus on writing. You can write your entire paper as per the Clinical Oral Implants Research guidelines and auto format it.

2. Do you follow the Clinical Oral Implants Research guidelines?

Yes, the template is compliant with the Clinical Oral Implants Research guidelines. Our experts at SciSpace ensure that. If there are any changes to the journal's guidelines, we'll change our algorithm accordingly.

3. Can I cite my article in multiple styles in Clinical Oral Implants Research?

Of course! We support all the top citation styles, such as APA style, MLA style, Vancouver style, Harvard style, and Chicago style. For example, when you write your paper and hit autoformat, our system will automatically update your article as per the Clinical Oral Implants Research citation style.

4. Can I use the Clinical Oral Implants Research templates for free?

Sign up for our free trial, and you'll be able to use all our features for seven days. You'll see how helpful they are and how inexpensive they are compared to other options, Especially for Clinical Oral Implants Research.

5. Can I use a manuscript in Clinical Oral Implants Research that I have written in MS Word?

Yes. You can choose the right template, copy-paste the contents from the word document, and click on auto-format. Once you're done, you'll have a publish-ready paper Clinical Oral Implants Research that you can download at the end.

6. How long does it usually take you to format my papers in Clinical Oral Implants Research?

It only takes a matter of seconds to edit your manuscript. Besides that, our intuitive editor saves you from writing and formatting it in Clinical Oral Implants Research.

7. Where can I find the template for the Clinical Oral Implants Research?

It is possible to find the Word template for any journal on Google. However, why use a template when you can write your entire manuscript on SciSpace , auto format it as per Clinical Oral Implants Research's guidelines and download the same in Word, PDF and LaTeX formats? Give us a try!.

8. Can I reformat my paper to fit the Clinical Oral Implants Research's guidelines?

Of course! You can do this using our intuitive editor. It's very easy. If you need help, our support team is always ready to assist you.

9. Clinical Oral Implants Research an online tool or is there a desktop version?

SciSpace's Clinical Oral Implants Research is currently available as an online tool. We're developing a desktop version, too. You can request (or upvote) any features that you think would be helpful for you and other researchers in the "feature request" section of your account once you've signed up with us.

10. I cannot find my template in your gallery. Can you create it for me like Clinical Oral Implants Research?

Sure. You can request any template and we'll have it setup within a few days. You can find the request box in Journal Gallery on the right side bar under the heading, "Couldn't find the format you were looking for like Clinical Oral Implants Research?”

11. What is the output that I would get after using Clinical Oral Implants Research?

After writing your paper autoformatting in Clinical Oral Implants Research, you can download it in multiple formats, viz., PDF, Docx, and LaTeX.

12. Is Clinical Oral Implants Research's impact factor high enough that I should try publishing my article there?

To be honest, the answer is no. The impact factor is one of the many elements that determine the quality of a journal. Few of these factors include review board, rejection rates, frequency of inclusion in indexes, and Eigenfactor. You need to assess all these factors before you make your final call.

13. What is Sherpa RoMEO Archiving Policy for Clinical Oral Implants Research?

SHERPA/RoMEO Database

We extracted this data from Sherpa Romeo to help researchers understand the access level of this journal in accordance with the Sherpa Romeo Archiving Policy for Clinical Oral Implants Research. The table below indicates the level of access a journal has as per Sherpa Romeo's archiving policy.

RoMEO Colour Archiving policy
Green Can archive pre-print and post-print or publisher's version/PDF
Blue Can archive post-print (ie final draft post-refereeing) or publisher's version/PDF
Yellow Can archive pre-print (ie pre-refereeing)
White Archiving not formally supported
FYI:
  1. Pre-prints as being the version of the paper before peer review and
  2. Post-prints as being the version of the paper after peer-review, with revisions having been made.

14. What are the most common citation types In Clinical Oral Implants Research?

The 5 most common citation types in order of usage for Clinical Oral Implants Research are:.

S. No. Citation Style Type
1. Author Year
2. Numbered
3. Numbered (Superscripted)
4. Author Year (Cited Pages)
5. Footnote

15. How do I submit my article to the Clinical Oral Implants Research?

It is possible to find the Word template for any journal on Google. However, why use a template when you can write your entire manuscript on SciSpace , auto format it as per Clinical Oral Implants Research's guidelines and download the same in Word, PDF and LaTeX formats? Give us a try!.

16. Can I download Clinical Oral Implants Research in Endnote format?

Yes, SciSpace provides this functionality. After signing up, you would need to import your existing references from Word or Bib file to SciSpace. Then SciSpace would allow you to download your references in Clinical Oral Implants Research Endnote style according to Elsevier guidelines.

Fast and reliable,
built for complaince.

Instant formatting to 100% publisher guidelines on - SciSpace.

Available only on desktops 🖥

No word template required

Typset automatically formats your research paper to Clinical Oral Implants Research formatting guidelines and citation style.

Verifed journal formats

One editor, 100K journal formats.
With the largest collection of verified journal formats, what you need is already there.

Trusted by academicians

I spent hours with MS word for reformatting. It was frustrating - plain and simple. With SciSpace, I can draft my manuscripts and once it is finished I can just submit. In case, I have to submit to another journal it is really just a button click instead of an afternoon of reformatting.

Andreas Frutiger
Researcher & Ex MS Word user
Use this template