↓ Skip to main content

A review of the application of anodization for the fabrication of nanotubes on metal implant surfaces

Overview of attention for article published in Acta Biomaterialia, August 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
188 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
320 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.
Title
A review of the application of anodization for the fabrication of nanotubes on metal implant surfaces
Published in
Acta Biomaterialia, August 2012
DOI 10.1016/j.actbio.2012.04.005
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sepideh Minagar, Christopher C. Berndt, James Wang, Elena Ivanova, Cuie Wen

Abstract

Metal implants are the best choice for the long-term replacement of hard tissue, such as hip and knee joints, because of their excellent mechanical properties. Titanium and its alloys, due to their self-organized oxide layer, which protects the surface from corrosion and prevents ion release, are widely accepted as biocompatible metal implants. Surface modification is essential for the promotion of the osseointegration of these biomaterials. Nanotubes fabricated on the surface of metal implants by anodization are receiving ever-increasing attention for surface modification. This paper provides an overview of the employment of anodization for nanotubes fabricated on the surface of titanium, titanium alloys and titanium alloying metals such as niobium, tantalum and zirconium metal implants. This work explains anodic oxidation and the manner by which nanotubes form on the surface of the metals. It then assesses this topical research to indicate how changes in anodizing conditions influence nanotube characteristics such as tube diameters and nanotube-layer thickness.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 320 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 4 1%
Colombia 2 <1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Romania 1 <1%
Korea, Republic of 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 310 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 79 25%
Student > Master 70 22%
Researcher 43 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 23 7%
Student > Postgraduate 23 7%
Other 61 19%
Unknown 21 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Materials Science 108 34%
Engineering 69 22%
Chemistry 34 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 4%
Other 34 11%
Unknown 48 15%

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 30 October 2012.
All research outputs
#7,655,427
of 12,249,897 outputs
Outputs from Acta Biomaterialia
#1,573
of 2,219 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#73,736
of 133,116 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Acta Biomaterialia
#13
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,249,897 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,219 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 133,116 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.