↓ Skip to main content

Bioceramics and Scaffolds: A Winning Combination for Tissue Engineering

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
292 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
496 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
Bioceramics and Scaffolds: A Winning Combination for Tissue Engineering
Published in
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, December 2015
DOI 10.3389/fbioe.2015.00202
Pubmed ID
Authors

Francesco Baino, Giorgia Novajra, Chiara Vitale-Brovarone

Abstract

In the last few decades, we have assisted to a general increase of elder population worldwide associated with age-related pathologies. Therefore, there is the need for new biomaterials that can substitute damaged tissues, stimulate the body's own regenerative mechanisms, and promote tissue healing. Porous templates referred to as "scaffolds" are thought to be required for three-dimensional tissue growth. Bioceramics, a special set of fully, partially, or non-crystalline ceramics (e.g., calcium phosphates, bioactive glasses, and glass-ceramics) that are designed for the repair and reconstruction of diseased parts of the body, have high potential as scaffold materials. Traditionally, bioceramics have been used to fill and restore bone and dental defects (repair of hard tissues). More recently, this category of biomaterials has also revealed promising applications in the field of soft-tissue engineering. Starting with an overview of the fundamental requirements for tissue engineering scaffolds, this article provides a detailed picture on recent developments of porous bioceramics and composites, including a summary of common fabrication technologies and a critical analysis of structure-property and structure-function relationships. Areas of future research are highlighted at the end of this review, with special attention to the development of multifunctional scaffolds exploiting therapeutic ion/drug release and emerging applications beyond hard tissue repair.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 2 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Iran, Islamic Republic of 1 <1%
Russia 1 <1%
Unknown 490 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 76 15%
Student > Bachelor 76 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 73 15%
Researcher 39 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 23 5%
Other 54 11%
Unknown 155 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 95 19%
Materials Science 71 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 32 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 31 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 28 6%
Other 56 11%
Unknown 183 37%
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 17 December 2015.
All research outputs
#18,432,465
of 22,835,198 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
#3,399
of 6,565 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#262,244
of 363,134 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
#30
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,835,198 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,565 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 363,134 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.