↓ Skip to main content

In vitro immunological and biological evaluations of the angiogenic potential of platelet-rich fibrin preparations: a standardized comparison with PRP preparations

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Implant Dentistry, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#36 of 103)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
98 Mendeley
Title
In vitro immunological and biological evaluations of the angiogenic potential of platelet-rich fibrin preparations: a standardized comparison with PRP preparations
Published in
International Journal of Implant Dentistry, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s40729-015-0032-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mito Kobayashi, Tomoyuki Kawase, Kazuhiro Okuda, Larry F. Wolff, Hiromasa Yoshie

Abstract

Platelet-rich fibrin (PRF), a platelet-rich plasma (PRP) derivative mainly composed of fibrin networks, has been increasingly demonstrated to be effective in wound healing in clinical and pre-clinical animal studies. However, there has still been a concern that major growth factors may significantly be loss from PRF during its preparation through the slow clotting process. To address this concern, we compared the angiogenic potential of PRF and PRP by standardization of procedures based on volume ratios. PRP, PRF, and platelet-poor plasma (PPP) were prepared from the peripheral blood of healthy donors. PRF preparations were squeezed or homogenized to produce exudate (PRFexu) or extract (PRFext), respectively. Concentrations of the angiogenic factors and their bioactivities were determined using ELISA kits, a scratch assay using endothelial cells and a chicken chorioallantoic membrane (CAM) assay. In PRP and PRF preparations, both VEGF and PDGF-BB were significantly more concentrated than PPP. In the scratch assay, PRFexu and PRFext were the most effective for wound closure. In the CAM assay, PRF membranes were the most effective for neovascularization. It is suggested that PRF preparations efficiently preserve the angiogenic factors and function not only as a scaffolding material but as a reservoir of angiogenic factors in wound healing.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 98 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 98 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 14%
Student > Master 14 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 9%
Student > Postgraduate 9 9%
Other 23 23%
Unknown 19 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 47 48%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 7%
Engineering 3 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Other 10 10%
Unknown 25 26%
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 02 December 2015.
All research outputs
#15,351,145
of 22,834,308 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Implant Dentistry
#36
of 103 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#227,035
of 387,438 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Implant Dentistry
#2
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,834,308 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 103 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its peers.
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 387,438 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.