↓ Skip to main content

Biomimetic approaches with smart interfaces for bone regeneration

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Biomedical Science, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (61st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 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
Biomimetic approaches with smart interfaces for bone regeneration
Published in
Journal of Biomedical Science, November 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12929-016-0284-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

G. S. Sailaja, P. Ramesh, Sajith Vellappally, Sukumaran Anil, H. K. Varma

Abstract

A 'smart tissue interface' is a host tissue-biomaterial interface capable of triggering favourable biochemical events inspired by stimuli responsive mechanisms. In other words, biomaterial surface is instrumental in dictating the interface functionality. This review aims to investigate the fundamental and favourable requirements of a 'smart tissue interface' that can positively influence the degree of healing and promote bone tissue regeneration. A biomaterial surface when interacts synergistically with the dynamic extracellular matrix, the healing process become accelerated through development of a smart interface. The interface functionality relies equally on bound functional groups and conjugated molecules belonging to the biomaterial and the biological milieu it interacts with. The essential conditions for such a special biomimetic environment are discussed. We highlight the impending prospects of smart interfaces and trying to relate the design approaches as well as critical factors that determine species-specific functionality with special reference to bone tissue regeneration.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters 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 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 54 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 20%
Researcher 8 15%
Student > Bachelor 6 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 8 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 20%
Chemistry 7 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 11%
Engineering 5 9%
Materials Science 4 7%
Other 11 20%
Unknown 10 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 05 November 2016.
All research outputs
#5,781,531
of 11,468,579 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Biomedical Science
#341
of 586 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#94,997
of 251,872 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Biomedical Science
#8
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,468,579 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 586 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 251,872 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 61% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.