The increasing variety of biomaterials available to the craniofacial surgeon today, with advantages of "off-the-shelf availability" and lack of donor-site morbidity, provides a formidable armamentarium for applications in reconstruction and augmentation. Although biomaterials are invaluable alternatives to autogenous bone graft, there is lack of uniformity in clinical application. In this article, we review our experience with the use of hydroxyapatite derivatives in animal studies and subsequently discuss our experience with the use of 3 classes of biomaterials (cement pastes, osteoactive biomaterials, and prefabricated polymers) for craniofacial reconstruction. We subsequently offer guidelines to dictate the choice of biomaterials for different applications, based on the site of reconstruction (onlay versus inlay reconstruction) and skeletal maturity.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 31 October 2017.
All research outputs
#8,261,756
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Craniofacial Surgery
#242
of 4,552 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,602
of 183,276 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Craniofacial Surgery
#1
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,552 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
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 183,276 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
