↓ Skip to main content

Use of a laser displacement sensor with a non-contact electromagnetic vibration device for assessment of simulated periodontal tissue conditions

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Oral Science, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
13 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Use of a laser displacement sensor with a non-contact electromagnetic vibration device for assessment of simulated periodontal tissue conditions
Published in
Journal of Oral Science, January 2016
DOI 10.2334/josnusd.58.93
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hiroshi Kobayashi, Masaru Yamaoka, Makoto Hayashi, Bunnai Ogiso

Abstract

A non-contact electromagnetic vibration device (NEVD) was previously developed to monitor the condition of periodontal tissues by assessing mechanical parameters. This system requires placement of an accelerometer on the target tooth, to detect vibration. Using experimental tooth models, we evaluated the performance of an NEVD system with a laser displacement sensor (LDS), which does not need an accelerometer. Simulated teeth (polyacetal rods) were submerged at various depths in simulated bone (polyurethane or polyurethane foam) containing simulated periodontal ligament (tissue conditioner). Then, mechanical parameters (resonant frequency, elastic modulus, and viscosity coefficient) were assessed using the NEVD with the following detection methods: Group 1, measurement with an accelerometer; Group 2, measurement with an LDS in the presence of the accelerometer; and Group 3, measurement with an LDS in the absence of the accelerometer. Statistical analyses were performed using nonparametric methods (n = 5) (P < 0.05). The three mechanical parameters significantly increased with increasing depth. In addition, the mechanical parameters significantly differed between the polyurethane and polyurethane foam models. Although Groups 1 and 2 did not significantly differ, most all mechanical parameters in Group 3 were significantly larger and more distinguishable than those in Groups 1 and 2. The LDS was more accurate in measuring mechanical parameters and better able to differentiate periodontal tissue conditions. (J Oral Sci 58, 93-99, 2016).

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

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.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 13 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 46%
Researcher 2 15%
Student > Postgraduate 2 15%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 8%
Unknown 2 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 69%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 8%
Engineering 1 8%
Unknown 2 15%
Attention Score in Context

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 13 April 2016.
All research outputs
#20,656,820
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Oral Science
#187
of 369 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#295,048
of 399,679 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Oral Science
#5
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 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 369 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.6. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 399,679 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 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.