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 |
Development and performance analysis of Si-CaP/fine particulate bone powder combined grafts for bone regeneration
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BioMedical Engineering OnLine, May 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12938-015-0042-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Chengli Sun, Ye Tian, Wenxiao Xu, Changlong Zhou, Huanxin Xie, Xintao Wang |
| Abstract |
Although autogenous bone grafts as well as several bone graft substitute material have been used for some time, there is high demand for more efficient and less costly bone-substitute materials. Silicon-substituted calcium phosphates (Si-CaP) and fine particulate bone powder (FPBP) preparations have been previously shown to individually possess many of the required features of a bone graft substitute scaffold. However, when applied individually, these two materials fall short of an ideal substitute material. We investigated a new concept of combining Si-CaP with FPBP for improved performance in bone-repair. We assessed Si-CaP/FPBP combined grafts in vitro, by measuring changes in pH, weight loss, water absorption and compressive strength over time. Si-CaP/FPBP combined grafts was found to produce conditions of alkaline pH levels compared to FPBP, and scaffold surface morphology conducive to bone cell adhesion, proliferation, differentiation, tissue growth and transport of nutrients, while maintaining elasticity and mechanical strength and degradation at a rate closer to osteogenesis. Si-CaP/FPBP combined grafts was found to be superior to any of the two components individually. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 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 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 19 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 3 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 16% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 5% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 11% |
| Unknown | 7 | 37% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Materials Science | 3 | 16% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 16% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 11% |
| Engineering | 2 | 11% |
| Chemistry | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 7 | 37% |
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 22 May 2015.
All research outputs
#15,333,633
of 22,807,037 outputs
Outputs from BioMedical Engineering OnLine
#424
of 824 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#157,389
of 267,780 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BioMedical Engineering OnLine
#12
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,807,037 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 824 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 267,780 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.