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 |
Additive manufacturing of wet-spun polymeric scaffolds for bone tissue engineering
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Biomedical Microdevices, July 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10544-012-9677-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Dario Puppi, Carlos Mota, Matteo Gazzarri, Dinuccio Dinucci, Antonio Gloria, Mairam Myrzabekova, Luigi Ambrosio, Federica Chiellini |
| Abstract |
An Additive Manufacturing technique for the fabrication of three-dimensional polymeric scaffolds, based on wet-spinning of poly(ε-caprolactone) (PCL) or PCL/hydroxyapatite (HA) solutions, was developed. The processing conditions to fabricate scaffolds with a layer-by-layer approach were optimized by studying their influence on fibres morphology and alignment. Two different scaffold architectures were designed and fabricated by tuning inter-fibre distance and fibres staggering. The developed scaffolds showed good reproducibility of the internal architecture characterized by highly porous, aligned fibres with an average diameter in the range 200-250 μm. Mechanical characterization showed that the architecture and HA loading influenced the scaffold compressive modulus and strength. Cell culture experiments employing MC3T3-E1 preosteoblast cell line showed good cell adhesion, proliferation, alkaline phosphatase activity and bone mineralization on the developed scaffolds. |
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 Kingdom | 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 143 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 138 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 37 | 26% |
| Student > Master | 32 | 22% |
| Student > Bachelor | 16 | 11% |
| Researcher | 11 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 4% |
| Other | 16 | 11% |
| Unknown | 25 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering | 44 | 31% |
| Materials Science | 16 | 11% |
| Chemistry | 11 | 8% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 6% |
| Other | 23 | 16% |
| Unknown | 31 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 17 September 2020.
All research outputs
#6,396,976
of 22,727,570 outputs
Outputs from Biomedical Microdevices
#207
of 746 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,999
of 164,345 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biomedical Microdevices
#9
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,727,570 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 746 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 164,345 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 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.