↓ Skip to main content

Mandibular Branch of the Facial Nerve in Wistar Rats: New Experimental Model to Assess Facial Nerve Regeneration

Overview of attention for article published in International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology, May 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
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.
Title
Mandibular Branch of the Facial Nerve in Wistar Rats: New Experimental Model to Assess Facial Nerve Regeneration
Published in
International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology, May 2014
DOI 10.1055/s-0034-1366977
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ricardo Ferreira Bento, Raquel Salomone, Silvia Bona do Nascimento, Ricardo Jose Rodriguez Ferreira, Ciro Ferreira da Silva, Heloisa Juliana Zabeu Rossi Costa

Abstract

Introduction The ideal animal model for nerve regeneration studies is the object of controversy, because all models described by the literature have advantages and disadvantages. Objective To describe the histologic and functional patterns of the mandibular branch of the facial nerve of Wistar rats to create a new experimental model of facial nerve regeneration. Methods Forty-two male rats were submitted to a nerve conduction test of the mandibular branch to obtain the compound muscle action potential. Twelve of these rats had the mandibular branch surgically removed and submitted to histologic analysis (number, partial density, and axonal diameter) of the proximal and distal segments. Results There was no statistically significant difference in the functional and histologic variables studied. Conclusion These new histologic and functional standards of the mandibular branch of the facial nerve of rats establish an objective, easy, and greatly reproducible model for future facial nerve regeneration studies.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

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 %
Researcher 3 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 16%
Student > Bachelor 2 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Other 3 16%
Unknown 6 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 37%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 21%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 5%
Unknown 7 37%
Attention Score in Context

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
#18,396,431
of 22,786,691 outputs
Outputs from International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology
#223
of 645 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#163,104
of 226,390 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology
#3
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,786,691 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 645 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 226,390 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.