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 |
Effect of collagen sponge and fibrin glue on bone repair
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Applied Oral Science, January 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1590/1678-775720150374 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Thiago de Santana Santos, Rodrigo Paolo Flores Abuna, Adriana Luisa Gonçalves de Almeida, Marcio Mateus Beloti, Adalberto Luiz Rosa |
| Abstract |
The ability of hemostatic agents to promote bone repair has been investigated using in vitro and in vivo models but, up to now, the results are inconclusive. Objective In this context, the aim of this study was to compare the potential of bone repair of collagen sponge with fibrin glue in a rat calvarial defect model. Material and Methods Defects of 5 mm in diameter were created in rat calvariae and treated with either collagen sponge or fibrin glue; untreated defects were used as control. At 4 and 8 weeks, histological analysis and micro-CT-based histomorphometry were carried out and data were compared by two-way ANOVA followed by Student-Newman-Keuls test when appropriated (p≤0.05). Results Three-dimensional reconstructions showed increased bone formation in defects treated with either collagen sponge or fibrin glue compared with untreated defects, which was confirmed by the histological analysis. Morphometric parameters indicated the progression of bone formation from 4 to 8 weeks. Additionally, fibrin glue displayed slightly higher bone formation rate when compared with collagen sponge. Conclusion Our results have shown the benefits of using collagen sponge and fibrin glue to promote new bone formation in rat calvarial bone defects, the latter being discreetly more advantageous. |
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 States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 56 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 10 | 18% |
| Researcher | 5 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 9% |
| Other | 4 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 7 | 13% |
| Unknown | 22 | 39% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 21% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 9% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 7% |
| Engineering | 4 | 7% |
| Materials Science | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 4% |
| Unknown | 27 | 48% |
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 January 2016.
All research outputs
#22,759,452
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Applied Oral Science
#496
of 596 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#306,533
of 359,528 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Applied Oral Science
#22
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 596 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 359,528 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.