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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Efficacy of LED versus KTP laser activation of photodynamic bleaching of tetracycline-stained dentine
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Lasers in Medical Science, October 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10103-014-1675-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Zackary Y. Bennett, Laurence J. Walsh |
| Abstract |
In some well-established laser applications where large spot sizes are used, an array of high-intensity light emitting diodes (LED) emitting at similar wavelength could potentially replace the laser. This situation applies for the photodynamic bleaching of stains in teeth. This study compared the relative efficacy of an array of visible green LED (535 nm ± 15 nm) with a KTP laser in photodynamic bleaching of tetracycline-stained dentine in human tooth roots. After establishing consistent staining in 96 roots using a validated method, the roots were sectioned into 2-3-mm thick horizontal slices that were treated with gels containing rhodamine B (Smartbleach® or Smartbleach® 3LT). Colour changes were tracked up to 1 month after treatment. While both systems were effective in bleaching the tetracycline-stained dentine, KTP laser activation gave greater bleaching efficacy than LED activation, enhancing the action of the gel. Use of the KTP laser would be preferable over an LED system when confronted with tetracycline staining. Use of this photodynamic bleaching method offers valuable means to reduce the severity of tetracycline staining. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 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 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 28 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 21% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 10% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Researcher | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 4 | 14% |
| Unknown | 8 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 62% |
| Psychology | 1 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 9 | 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 06 October 2014.
All research outputs
#18,379,655
of 22,765,347 outputs
Outputs from Lasers in Medical Science
#868
of 1,306 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#182,044
of 254,867 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Lasers in Medical Science
#27
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,765,347 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 1,306 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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 254,867 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 43 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.