| Title |
Effectiveness of ultrasonically activated irrigation on root canal disinfection: a systematic review of in vitro studies
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Oral Investigations, January 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00784-018-2345-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Venkateshbabu Nagendrababu, Jayakumar Jayaraman, Anand Suresh, Senthilnayagam Kalyanasundaram, Prasanna Neelakantan |
| Abstract |
Reduction of microbial load from the root canal systems is a pre-requisite for healing of lesions of endodontic origin. Such microbial reduction is influenced by the method of irrigant delivery and activation. The aim of this systematic review was to compare the effect of ultrasonically activated irrigation (UAI) with other irrigation techniques on the reduction of microorganisms during root canal disinfection. The research question was created based on the PICO strategy. Two reviewers independently performed a comprehensive literature search in electronic databases. Following application of inclusion and exclusion criteria to the selected articles, a systematic data extraction sheet was constructed. The selected articles were assessed using methodological quality scoring protocol. The risk of bias in selected studies was critically assessed by two reviewers. A total of 15 articles were included for the systematic review. The included studies were heterogeneous in study design; hence, meta-analysis was not performed. The overall risk of bias for the selected studies was moderate. Overall, UAI showed superior reduction of microbial counts, resulting in better disinfection compared to other irrigation systems chosen for comparison in this review. The use of UAI can bring about superior microbial reduction within the root canal system compared to other irrigant activation techniques. Activation of irrigants with ultrasonic brings about significant bacterial reduction from the root canal systems compared to other methods of irrigant activation and conventional syringe irrigation. This might help in improving the outcome of root canal treatment. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 196 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 196 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 33 | 17% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 18 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 17 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 5% |
| Researcher | 8 | 4% |
| Other | 30 | 15% |
| Unknown | 80 | 41% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 95 | 48% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 2% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 1% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 1% |
| Unspecified | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 7 | 4% |
| Unknown | 86 | 44% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 15 August 2019.
All research outputs
#3,214,135
of 23,020,670 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Oral Investigations
#88
of 1,427 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#75,911
of 441,127 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Oral Investigations
#2
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,020,670 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,427 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 441,127 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.