You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Application of mesenchymal stem cell sheet for regeneration of craniomaxillofacial bone defects
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Stem Cell Research & Therapy, April 2023
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13287-023-03309-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Behnaz Banimohamad-Shotorbani, Sonia Fathi Karkan, Reza Rahbarghazi, Ahmad Mehdipour, Seyedhosein Jarolmasjed, Sepideh Saghati, Hajar Shafaei |
| Abstract |
Bone defects are among the most common damages in human medicine. Due to limitations and challenges in the area of bone healing, the research field has turned into a hot topic discipline with direct clinical outcomes. Among several available modalities, scaffold-free cell sheet technology has opened novel avenues to yield efficient osteogenesis. It is suggested that the intact matrix secreted from cells can provide a unique microenvironment for the acceleration of osteoangiogenesis. To the best of our knowledge, cell sheet technology (CST) has been investigated in terms of several skeletal defects with promising outcomes. Here, we highlighted some recent advances associated with the application of CST for the recovery of craniomaxillofacial (CMF) in various preclinical settings. The regenerative properties of both single-layer and multilayer CST were assessed regarding fabrication methods and applications. It has been indicated that different forms of cell sheets are available for CMF engineering like those used for other hard tissues. By tackling current challenges, CST is touted as an effective and alternative therapeutic option for CMF bone regeneration. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 5 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 5 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 4 | 80% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 4 | 80% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 07 April 2023.
All research outputs
#15,840,257
of 23,539,593 outputs
Outputs from Stem Cell Research & Therapy
#1,394
of 2,488 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#133,470
of 246,628 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Stem Cell Research & Therapy
#13
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,539,593 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,488 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 246,628 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.