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 |
Three-dimensional finite element analysis of the effects of implant diameter and photofunctionalization on peri-implant stress
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Oral Science, January 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2334/josnusd.16-0144 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Tetsuo Ohyama, Hiroyasu Yasuda, Norio Shibuya, Satomi Tadokoro, Shinya Nakabayashi, Shunsuke Namaki, Yaeko Hara, Takahiro Ogawa, Tomohiko Ishigami |
| Abstract |
Previous finite element analyses of peri-implant stress assumed a bone-implant contact (BIC) ratio of 100%, even though the BIC ratio is known to be approximately 50% or less. However, the recent development of ultraviolet treatment of titanium immediately before use, known as photofunctionalization, significantly increased the BIC ratio, to 98.2%. We used a unique finite element analysis model that enabled us to examine the effects of different BIC ratios on peri-implant stress. A three-dimensional model was constructed under conditions of vertical or oblique loading, an implant diameter of 3.3, 3.75, or 5.0 mm, and a BIC ratio of 53.0% or 98.2%. Photofunctionalization and larger implant diameters were associated with reduced stress on surrounding tissues. Under vertical loading, photofunctionalization had a greater effect than increased implant diameter on stress reduction. Under oblique loading, increased implant diameter had a greater effect than photofunctionalization on stress reduction. |
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 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 27 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 30% |
| Researcher | 3 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 5 | 19% |
| Unknown | 4 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 17 | 63% |
| Engineering | 2 | 7% |
| Materials Science | 2 | 7% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 5 | 19% |
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 13 July 2017.
All research outputs
#18,560,904
of 22,988,380 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Oral Science
#163
of 332 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#311,328
of 421,122 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Oral Science
#11
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,988,380 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 332 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.2. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 421,122 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 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.