| Title |
Application of dental nanomaterials: potential toxicity to the central nervous system
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Nanomedicine, May 2015
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ijn.s79892 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Xiaoli Feng, Aijie Chen, Yanli Zhang, Jianfeng Wang, Longquan Shao, Limin Wei |
| Abstract |
Nanomaterials are defined as materials with one or more external dimensions with a size of 1-100 nm. Such materials possess typical nanostructure-dependent properties (eg, chemical, biological, optical, mechanical, and magnetic), which may differ greatly from the properties of their bulk counterparts. In recent years, nanomaterials have been widely used in the production of dental materials, particularly in light polymerization composite resins and bonding systems, coating materials for dental implants, bioceramics, endodontic sealers, and mouthwashes. However, the dental applications of nanomaterials yield not only a significant improvement in clinical treatments but also growing concerns regarding their biosecurity. The brain is well protected by the blood-brain barrier (BBB), which separates the blood from the cerebral parenchyma. However, in recent years, many studies have found that nanoparticles (NPs), including nanocarriers, can transport through the BBB and locate in the central nervous system (CNS). Because the CNS may be a potential target organ of the nanomaterials, it is essential to determine the neurotoxic effects of NPs. In this review, possible dental nanomaterials and their pathways into the CNS are discussed, as well as related neurotoxicity effects underlying the in vitro and in vivo studies. Finally, we analyze the limitations of the current testing methods on the toxicological effects of nanomaterials. This review contributes to a better understanding of the nano-related risks to the CNS as well as the further development of safety assessment systems. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 4 | 80% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 60% |
| Members of the public | 2 | 40% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 113 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 112 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 18 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 12 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 9 | 8% |
| Other | 16 | 14% |
| Unknown | 33 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 33 | 29% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 7 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 5% |
| Materials Science | 6 | 5% |
| Other | 18 | 16% |
| Unknown | 37 | 33% |
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 14 December 2020.
All research outputs
#14,599,900
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#1,525
of 4,123 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#130,862
of 278,920 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#24
of 89 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,123 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 278,920 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 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 89 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.