↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Aseptic-avascular osteonecrosis: local “silent inflammation” in the jawbone and RANTES/CCL5 overexpression

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational Dentistry, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
patent
2 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
14 Mendeley
Title
Aseptic-avascular osteonecrosis: local “silent inflammation” in the jawbone and RANTES/CCL5 overexpression
Published in
Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational Dentistry, November 2017
DOI 10.2147/ccide.s149545
Pubmed ID
Authors

Johann Lechner, Sabine Schuett, Volker von Baehr

Abstract

Of the definitions listed in the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, tenth revision (ICD-10), two disease descriptions can be found together: "idiopathic aseptic bone necrosis" and "avascular bone necrosis." The relevant literature on both the conditions abbreviates both as "aseptic ischemic osteonecrosis in the jawbone" (AIOJ). To shed light on the clinical details of this condition, osteolytic jawbone samples of 24 patients with different systemic immunological diseases were examined using four steps: presurgical dental X-ray, postsurgical histology, polymerase chain reaction DNA analysis (PCR DNA) of bacteria, and RANTES/CCL5 (R/C) expression. These four steps showed that neither X-ray nor histology delivered unambiguous results with respect to inflammatory processes; furthermore, the PCR results did not show evidence of any microbial load within the jaw samples. However, there is a striking, coherent overexpression of chemokine R/C in the AIOJ samples. This study proved the aseptic existence of "silent inflammation" within the jawbone. The ICD-10 (AIOJ) definition, which is hard to interpret, can now be substantiated with clinical evidence, while the cytokine expressions described in this report can explain the systemic immunological effects observed within the group of examined patients.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 14 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 14%
Other 2 14%
Student > Master 2 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 7%
Unknown 7 50%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 29%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 21%
Materials Science 1 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 7%
Unknown 5 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 12 December 2023.
All research outputs
#4,665,572
of 25,748,735 outputs
Outputs from Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational Dentistry
#1
of 1 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#77,212
of 341,828 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational Dentistry
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,748,735 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one scored the same or higher as 0 of them.
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 341,828 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them