| Title |
The quantitative sensory testing is an efficient objective method for assessment of nerve injury
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, May 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40902-015-0013-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Young-Kyun Kim, Pil-Young Yun, Jong-Hwa Kim, Ji-Young Lee, Won Lee |
| Abstract |
This study evaluated Somatosensory evoked potentials (SEP), Quantitative sensory testing (QST), and thermography as diagnostic methods for nerve injury. From 2006 through 2011, 17 patients (mean age: 50.1 years) from OOOO Hospital who sought care for altered sensation after dental implant treatment were identified. The mean time of objective assessment was 15.2 months after onset. SEP of Inferior alveolar nerve(IAN) was 15.87 ± 0.87 ms on the normal side and 16.18 ± 0.73 ms on the abnormal side. There was delayed N20 latency on the abnormal side, but the difference was not statistically significant. In QST, the abnormal side showed significantly higher scores of the current perception threshold at 2 KHz, 250 Hz, and 5 Hz. The absolute temperature difference was 0.55°C without statistically significance. These results indicate that QST is valuable as an objective method for assessment of nerve injury. |
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 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 36 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 7 | 19% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 14% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 5 | 14% |
| Unknown | 5 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 42% |
| Engineering | 4 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 8% |
| Materials Science | 2 | 6% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Unknown | 8 | 22% |
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 02 September 2015.
All research outputs
#20,656,820
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
#45
of 82 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#206,437
of 278,834 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
#2
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 82 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 278,834 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.