Biomaterial for Osseous Reconstruction
Innovative Perspectives in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Page: 11-17
2021
- 2Citations
- 4Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Book Chapter Description
The need for bone replacement is not new and traverses many surgical specialties. Historically, autogenous reconstructive bone grafts obtained from the patient being treated were the preferred regenerative material, and their reconstructive properties remain the standard by which other materials are measured. The availability of autogenous grafts can be limited though, and harvesting bone carries with it varying degrees of morbidity and risk of complication. However, technological advances in the processing of biomaterials have significantly improved the properties of alternative osseous reconstructive options. This chapter focuses on available bone substitute materials and their intrinsic properties to aid the practitioner in selective clinical use.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85139906656&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-75750-2_3; https://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-030-75750-2_3; https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-3-030-75750-2_3; https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-75750-2_3; https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-75750-2_3
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know