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 |
In vitro evaluation of the antimicrobial effects of different intracanal medications in necrotic immature teeth
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry, July 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40368-016-0236-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
C. Maniglia-Ferreira, F. de Almeida-Gomes, M. M. N. Pinto, F. T. de Sousa Barbosa, D. M. de Farias Filho, N. L. G. Albuquerque |
| Abstract |
This was to assess the antimicrobial effectiveness of pastes used as intracanal medicaments against Enterococcus faecalis in necrotic immature teeth. An agar-disc diffusion method over a period of 30 days was used. The following medications were analysed: triple antibiotic paste (TAP) I; double antibiotic paste (DAP) I; DAP I with calcium hydroxide; calcium hydroxide paste with saline solution 0.9 %; calcium hydroxide paste with chlorhexidine 2 % gel; DAP II; DAP II with zinc oxide; DAP II with calcium hydroxide; and saline solution 0.9 % as control. The diameters of the halos of inhibition (in mm) of tested medicaments were determined and analysed with one-way analysis of variance and Tukey's post hoc tests. TAP I (G1) was significantly more effective against E. faecalis, and showed the largest halo of inhibition during all the experiments. DAP groups (G2 and G6) also showed inhibiting bacterial growth with said inhibition remaining stable throughout the 30-day period. In contrast, G4 and G5 groups, in which Ca(OH)2 was added to saline and chlorhexidine, had no antibacterial effect. TAP and DAP showed better antibacterial efficacy and remained active for 30 days. Combination of Ca(OH)2 with antibiotics should be avoided, due to the possibility of antibiotic hydrolysis. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 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 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Egypt | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 63 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 18 | 28% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 9% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 7 | 11% |
| Unknown | 17 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 36 | 56% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 2% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 2% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 22 | 34% |
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 15 July 2016.
All research outputs
#18,465,988
of 22,880,691 outputs
Outputs from European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry
#207
of 282 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#271,353
of 354,681 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,880,691 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 282 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 354,681 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% 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. This one has scored higher than all of them