↓ Skip to main content

Platelet rich plasma and dentine effect on sheep dental pulp cells regeneration/revitalization ability (in vitro)

Overview of attention for article published in Australian Dental Journal, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
46 Mendeley
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.
Article details
Title
Platelet rich plasma and dentine effect on sheep dental pulp cells regeneration/revitalization ability (in vitro)
Published in
Australian Dental Journal, December 2016
DOI 10.1111/adj.12426
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

A scaffold is one of the essential elements in pulp regeneration/revitalisation protocols. (1) Blood clots have been commonly used as a scaffold,(2-4) but there are some limitations. Firstly, the difficulty in inducing bleeding is a problem that has been outlined in many case reports (5-7) and animal studies.(8, 9) Secondly, the concentration of growth factors in the blood is limited, and after clot formation erythrocytes may undergo necrosis, which may affect the growth of the healing tissue.10 This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

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.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 46 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 5 11%
Student > Master 5 11%
Student > Postgraduate 5 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 9%
Researcher 4 9%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 19 41%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 43%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Unknown 21 46%
Attention Score in Context

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 April 2016.
All research outputs
#19,917,373
of 24,477,448 outputs
Outputs from Australian Dental Journal
#557
of 758 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#301,295
of 404,290 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Australian Dental Journal
#20
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,477,448 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 758 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.5. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% 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 404,290 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 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.