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 a silane and phosphate functional monomer on shear bond strength of a resin-based luting agent to lithium disilicate ceramic and quartz materials
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Oral Science, August 2018
|
| DOI | 10.2334/josnusd.17-0383 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Serina Taguchi, Futoshi Komine, Kei Kubochi, Ryosuke Fushiki, Fumiaki Kimura, Hideo Matsumura |
| Abstract |
This study examined the effect of silane and phosphate functional monomer on bond strengths between a resin-based luting agent joined to a lithium disilicate ceramic (IPS e.max) and silica (quartz) materials. The e.max and quartz specimens were assigned to 6 groups with different priming/bonding agents, namely, Clearfil Porcelain Bond Activator, Clearfil Photo Bond, Clearfil Photo Bond Universal with Clearfil Porcelain Bond Activator, Clearfil Photo Bond Catalyst with Clearfil Porcelain Bond Activator, Clearfil Photo Bond with Clearfil Porcelain Bond Activator, and unprimed. The corresponding specimens were bonded by using a resin-based luting agent (Panavia V5). Shear bond strengths were determined before and after 5,000 thermocycles. For both the e.max and quartz specimens, the Clearfil Photo Bond Universal with Clearfil Porcelain Bond Activator group had the highest pre- and post-thermocycling bond strength values. Combined use of silane in the acidic environment of a phosphate functional monomer and initiators enhances bond strength of a resin-based luting agent to e.max ceramic and quartz materials. |
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 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 53 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 15 | 28% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 8% |
| Researcher | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 5 | 9% |
| Unknown | 20 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 22 | 42% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 4% |
| Chemical Engineering | 1 | 2% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 2% |
| Materials Science | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 26 | 49% |
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 08 September 2018.
All research outputs
#20,663,600
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Oral Science
#187
of 369 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#266,708
of 342,957 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Oral Science
#3
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 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 369 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.6. 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 342,957 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.