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 |
In vitro effect of hesperidin on root dentin collagen and de/re-mineralization
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Dental Materials Journal, May 2012
|
| DOI | 10.4012/dmj.2011-203 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sofiqul Md Islam, Noriko Hiraishi, Mohannad Nassar, Ryohei Sono, Masayuki Otsuki, Tsutomu Takatsura, Cynthia Yiu, Junji Tagami |
| Abstract |
The aims of this study were to investigate the effects of hesperidin, a citrus flavonoid, on human root dentin demineralization and collagen preservation, and compare it with chlorhexidine and grape seed extract. Specimens were assigned to different treatment groups: hesperidin, chlorhexidine and grape seed extract. Specimens were subjected to pH cycling by demineralization for 14 h, incubation in testing solutions for 2 h and remineralization in presence of bacterial-derived collagenase for 8 h, for 8 days. Calcium release was measured by means of an atomic absorption spectrophotometer, and degraded collagen matrix was investigated by hydroxyproline assay. Specimens were assessed longitudinally with transverse micro-radiography to investigate lesion depth and mineral loss. In hesperidin and grape seed extract groups, demineralization was reduced when the collagen matrix was preserved. The hesperidin group showed the lowest value in lesion depth and mineral loss, indicating that hesperidin inhibited demineralization and probably enhanced remineralization even under fluoride-free conditions. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 60 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 16% |
| Researcher | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 5% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 10 | 16% |
| Unknown | 24 | 39% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 26 | 43% |
| Materials Science | 4 | 7% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 3% |
| Energy | 2 | 3% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 3% |
| Unknown | 24 | 39% |
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 06 February 2013.
All research outputs
#20,656,161
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Dental Materials Journal
#231
of 349 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#138,009
of 176,566 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Dental Materials Journal
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 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 349 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.9. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 176,566 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them