↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

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 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 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

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

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.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 6 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 22%
Researcher 3 13%
Student > Master 3 13%
Lecturer 2 9%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 3 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Materials Science 11 48%
Engineering 3 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Chemistry 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 4 17%
Attention Score in Context

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
#16,722,190
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#2,088
of 4,122 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#159,109
of 281,411 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#56
of 109 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 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 4,122 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 281,411 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.