↓ Skip to main content

Regenerative Strategies for Craniofacial Disorders

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
69 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
Regenerative Strategies for Craniofacial Disorders
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2012.00453
Pubmed ID
Authors

Catharine B. Garland, Jason H. Pomerantz

Abstract

Craniofacial disorders present markedly complicated problems in reconstruction because of the complex interactions of the multiple, simultaneously affected tissues. Regenerative medicine holds promise for new strategies to improve treatment of these disorders. This review addresses current areas of unmet need in craniofacial reconstruction and emphasizes how craniofacial tissues differ from their analogs elsewhere in the body. We present a problem-based approach to illustrate current treatment strategies for various craniofacial disorders, to highlight areas of need, and to suggest regenerative strategies for craniofacial bone, fat, muscle, nerve, and skin. For some tissues, current approaches offer excellent reconstructive solutions using autologous tissue or prosthetic materials. Thus, new "regenerative" approaches would need to offer major advantages in order to be adopted. In other tissues, the unmet need is great, and we suggest the greatest regenerative need is for muscle, skin, and nerve. The advent of composite facial tissue transplantation and the development of regenerative medicine are each likely to add important new paradigms to our treatment of craniofacial disorders.

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 readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
Unknown 67 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 16%
Student > Master 9 13%
Student > Bachelor 8 12%
Researcher 7 10%
Student > Postgraduate 4 6%
Other 10 14%
Unknown 20 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 39%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 14%
Engineering 4 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Materials Science 2 3%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 19 28%
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 14 December 2012.
All research outputs
#20,176,348
of 22,689,790 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#9,282
of 13,486 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#221,229
of 244,142 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#208
of 309 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,689,790 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,486 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 244,142 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 309 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.