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 |
Does facial soft tissue protect against zygomatic fractures? Results of a finite element analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Head & Face Medicine, June 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13005-015-0078-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Heike Huempfner-Hierl, Alexander Bohne, Andreas Schaller, Gert Wollny, Thomas Hierl |
| Abstract |
Zygomatic fractures form a major entity in craniomaxillofacial traumatology. Few studies have dealt with biomechanical basics and none with the role of the facial soft tissues. Therefore this study should investigate, whether facial soft tissue plays a protecting role in lateral midfacial trauma. A head-to-head encounter was simulated by way of finite element analysis. In two scenarios this impact - with and without soft tissues - was investigated to demonstrate the potential protective effects. To achieve realism, a transient simulation was chosen, which considers temporal dynamics and realistic material parameters derived from CT grey values. The simulation results presented a typical zygomatic fracture with all relevant fracture lines. Including soft tissues did not change the maximum bony stress pattern, but increased the time period from impact to maximal stresses by 1.3 msec. Although this could have clinical implications, facial soft tissues may be disregarded in biomechanical simulations of the lateral midface, if only the bony structures are to be investigated. Soft tissue seems to act as a temporal buffer only. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| South Africa | 1 | 33% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 22 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 23% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 14% |
| Researcher | 3 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 9% |
| Other | 3 | 14% |
| Unknown | 2 | 9% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 64% |
| Engineering | 3 | 14% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 5% |
| Design | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 3 | 14% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 July 2015.
All research outputs
#12,734,135
of 22,813,792 outputs
Outputs from Head & Face Medicine
#76
of 334 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#103,446
of 239,955 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Head & Face Medicine
#3
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,813,792 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 334 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 239,955 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 7 of them.