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 |
A preliminary study of effects of low-intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS) irradiation on dentoalveolar ankylosis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Oral Science, January 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2334/josnusd.16-0551 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Tomoyasu Kiyokawa, Mitsuru Motoyoshi, Mizuki Inaba, Remi Sano, Akari Saiki, Go Torigoe, Masatake Asano, Noriyoshi Shimizu |
| Abstract |
The purpose of this experiment was to investigate whether low-intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS) irradiation can inhibit dentoalveolar ankylosis in transplanted rat teeth. LIPUS irradiation (the pulsed ultrasound signal had a frequency of 3.0 MHz, a spatial average intensity of 30 mW/cm(2), and a pulse ratio of 1:4) was performed on the face over the re-planted teeth of rats for 4 weeks. After the rats were euthanized, we measured mobility (Periotest value [PTV]) of the transplanted and control teeth using a Periotest. Finally, we performed histological evaluation to detect ankylosis. PTVs tended to be significantly lower for re-planted teeth than for control teeth. Histological evaluation revealed that the roots of all re-planted teeth were coalescent with alveolar bone. Furthermore, no ankylosis was observed in three-fifths of the re-planted teeth following LIPUS irradiation. These results indicate the potential efficacy of LIPUS to inhibit dentoalveolar ankylosis. |
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 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 13 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 23% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 23% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 8% |
| Librarian | 1 | 8% |
| Other | 2 | 15% |
| Unknown | 2 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 38% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 15% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 8% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 8% |
| Engineering | 1 | 8% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 3 | 23% |
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 20 September 2017.
All research outputs
#18,572,036
of 23,002,898 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Oral Science
#163
of 332 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#311,407
of 421,223 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Oral Science
#11
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,002,898 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 421,223 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.