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 |
Osteogenic differentiation of dental pulp stem cells under the influence of three different materials
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Oral Health, October 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12903-015-0113-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sumaiah A. Ajlan, Nahid Y. Ashri, Abdullah M. Aldahmash, May S. Alnbaheen |
| Abstract |
Regeneration of periodontal tissues is a major goal of periodontal therapy. Dental pulp stem cells (DPSCs) show mesenchymal cell properties with the potential for dental tissue engineering. Enamel matrix derivative (EMD) and platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF) are examples of materials that act as signaling molecules to enhance periodontal regeneration. Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) has been proven to be biocompatible and appears to have some osteoconductive properties. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of EMD, MTA, and PDGF on DPSC osteogenic differentiation. Human DPSCs were cultured in medium containing EMD, MTA, or PDGF. Control groups were also established. Evaluation of the achieved osteogenesis was carried out by computer analysis of alkaline phosphatase (ALP)-stained chambers, and spectrophotometric analysis of alizarin red S-stained mineralized nodules. EMD significantly increased the amounts of ALP expression and mineralization compared with all other groups (P < 0.05). Meanwhile, MTA gave variable results with slight increases in certain differentiation parameters, and PDGF showed no significant increase in the achieved differentiation. EMD showed a very strong osteogenic ability compared with PDGF and MTA, and the present results provide support for its use in periodontal regeneration. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| India | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 81 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 14 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 10% |
| Other | 5 | 6% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 11 | 13% |
| Unknown | 27 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 41 | 50% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 4% |
| Engineering | 3 | 4% |
| Arts and Humanities | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 5% |
| Unknown | 23 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 March 2017.
All research outputs
#13,958,483
of 22,831,537 outputs
Outputs from BMC Oral Health
#597
of 1,469 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#142,590
of 284,642 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Oral Health
#17
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,831,537 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,469 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 284,642 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.