| Title |
Effect of caffeic acid phenethyl ester on bone formation in the expanded inter-premaxillary suture
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Drug Design, Development and Therapy, December 2015
|
| DOI | 10.2147/dddt.s97797 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hakki Oguz Kazancioglu, Sertac Aksakalli, Seref Ezirganli, Muhammet Birlik, Mukaddes Esrefoglu, Ahmet Hüseyin Acar |
| Abstract |
Narrow maxilla is a common problem in orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics. To solve this problem, a procedure called rapid maxillary expansion (RME) has been used. However, relapse tendency is a major problem of RME. Although relapse tendency is not clearly understood, various treatment procedures and new applications have been investigated. The present study aimed to investigate the possible effectiveness of caffeic acid phenethyl ester (CAPE) on new bone formation in rat midpalatal suture after RME. Twenty male Sprague Dawley rats were used in this study. The animals were randomly divided into two groups as control and CAPE group. In the CAPE group, CAPE was administered systemically via intraperitoneal injection. RME procedure was performed on all animals. For this purpose, the springs were placed on the maxillary incisors of rats and activated for 5 days. After then, the springs were removed and replaced with short lengths of rectangular retaining wire for consolidation period of 15 days. At the end of the study, histomorphometric analysis was carried out to assess new bone formation. New bone formation was significantly greater in the CAPE group than the control group (P<0.05). CAPE enhances new bone formation in midpalatal suture after RME. These results show that CAPE may decrease the time needed for retention. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 52 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 12% |
| Unspecified | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 12 | 23% |
| Unknown | 13 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 22 | 42% |
| Unspecified | 4 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 8% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 4% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 6% |
| Unknown | 16 | 31% |
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 28 December 2015.
All research outputs
#20,823,121
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Drug Design, Development and Therapy
#1,416
of 2,254 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#292,697
of 396,604 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drug Design, Development and Therapy
#67
of 92 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,254 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 396,604 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 92 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.