↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Degradability, bioactivity, and osteogenesis of biocomposite scaffolds of lithium-containing mesoporous bioglass and mPEG-PLGA-b-PLL copolymer

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Nanomedicine, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 Mendeley
Title
Degradability, bioactivity, and osteogenesis of biocomposite scaffolds of lithium-containing mesoporous bioglass and mPEG-PLGA-b-PLL copolymer
Published in
International Journal of Nanomedicine, June 2015
DOI 10.2147/ijn.s82945
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yunfei Niu, Yanrong Cai, Lieping Guo, Hongxing Shen, Xiaofei An, Hong Jiang, Ji Fang

Abstract

Biocomposite scaffolds of lithium (Li)-containing mesoporous bioglass and monomethoxy poly(ethylene glycol)-poly(D,L-lactide-co-glycolide)-poly(L-lysine) (mPEG-PLGA-b-PLL) copolymer were fabricated in this study. The results showed that the water absorption and degradability of Li-containing mesoporous bioglass/mPEG-PLGA-b-PLL composite (l-MBPC) scaffolds were obviously higher than Li-containing bioglass/mPEG-PLGA-b-PLL composite (l-BPC) scaffolds. Moreover, the apatite-formation ability of l-MBPC scaffolds was markedly enhanced as compared with l-BPC scaffolds, indicating that l-MBPC scaffolds containing mesoporous bioglass exhibited good bioactivity. The cell experimental results showed that cell attachment, proliferation, and alkaline phosphatase activity of MC3T3-E1 cells on l-MBPC scaffolds were remarkably improved as compared to l-BPC scaffolds. In animal experiments, the histological elevation results revealed that l-MBPC scaffolds significantly promoted new bone formation, indicating good osteogenesis. l-MBPC scaffolds with improved properties would be an excellent candidate for bone tissue repair.

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 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 16 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 31%
Researcher 3 19%
Student > Master 3 19%
Lecturer 2 13%
Other 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 1 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Materials Science 6 38%
Engineering 3 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 6%
Chemistry 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 2 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 25 June 2015.
All research outputs
#14,817,410
of 22,815,414 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#1,856
of 3,816 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#147,862
of 267,518 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#53
of 109 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,815,414 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,816 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. 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 267,518 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 109 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.