| Title |
Quantification of vital adherent Streptococcus sanguinis cells on protein-coated titanium after disinfectant treatment
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine, June 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10856-011-4377-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Monika Astasov-Frauenhoffer, Olivier Braissant, Irmgard Hauser-Gerspach, A. U. Daniels, Dieter Wirz, Roland Weiger, Tuomas Waltimo |
| Abstract |
The quantification of vital adherent bacteria is challenging, especially when efficacy of antimicrobial agents is to be evaluated. In this study three different methods were compared in order to quantify vital adherent Streptococcus sanguinis cells after exposure to disinfectants. An anaerobic flow chamber model accomplished initial adhesion of S. sanguinis on protein-coated titanium. Effects of chlorhexidine, Betadine®, Octenidol®, and ProntOral® were assessed by quantifying vital cells using Live/Dead BacLight™, conventional culturing and isothermal microcalorimetry (IMC). Results were analysed by Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance. Live/dead staining revealed highest vital cell counts (P < 0.05) and demonstrated dose-dependent effect for all disinfectants. Microcalorimetry showed time-delayed heat flow peaks that were proportioned to the remaining number of viable cells. Over 48 h there was no difference in total heat between treated and untreated samples (P > 0.05), indicating equivalent numbers of bacteria were created and disinfectants delayed growth but did not eliminate it. In conclusion, contrary to culturing, live/dead staining enables detection of cells that may be viable but non-cultivable. Microcalorimetry allows unique evaluation of relative disinfectant effects by quantifying differences in time delay of regrowth of remaining vital cells. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 16 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 4 | 24% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 3 | 18% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 12% |
| Other | 4 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 29% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 29% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 12% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 6% |
| Engineering | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 3 | 18% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 20 February 2013.
All research outputs
#4,697,128
of 22,790,780 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine
#106
of 1,402 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,559
of 113,740 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine
#3
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,790,780 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,402 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 113,740 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.