↓ Skip to main content

Wound Healing Problems in the Mouth

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
143 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
527 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
Wound Healing Problems in the Mouth
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, November 2016
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2016.00507
Pubmed ID
Authors

Constantinus Politis, Joseph Schoenaers, Reinhilde Jacobs, Jimoh O. Agbaje

Abstract

Wound healing is a primary survival mechanism that is largely taken for granted. The literature includes relatively little information about disturbed wound healing, and there is no acceptable classification describing wound healing process in the oral region. Wound healing comprises a sequence of complex biological processes. All tissues follow an essentially identical pattern to complete the healing process with minimal scar formation. The oral cavity is a remarkable environment in which wound healing occurs in warm oral fluid containing millions of microorganisms. The present review provides a basic overview of the wound healing process and with a discussion of the local and general factors that play roles in achieving efficient would healing. Results of oral cavity wound healing can vary from a clinically healed wound without scar formation and with histologically normal connective tissue under epithelial cells to extreme forms of trismus caused by fibrosis. Many local and general factors affect oral wound healing, and an improved understanding of these factors will help to address issues that lead to poor oral wound healing.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 527 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Norway 1 <1%
Unknown 526 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 82 16%
Student > Master 59 11%
Student > Postgraduate 35 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 6%
Researcher 22 4%
Other 82 16%
Unknown 218 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 209 40%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 19 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 14 3%
Engineering 11 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 2%
Other 33 6%
Unknown 232 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 March 2021.
All research outputs
#3,080,375
of 22,899,952 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#1,629
of 13,689 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,499
of 311,557 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#30
of 199 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,899,952 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,689 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 311,557 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 199 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.