↓ Skip to main content

Physicochemical Properties and Interfacial Adaptation of Root Canal Sealers

Overview of attention for article published in Brazilian Dental Journal, October 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
50 Mendeley
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.
Title
Physicochemical Properties and Interfacial Adaptation of Root Canal Sealers
Published in
Brazilian Dental Journal, October 2014
DOI 10.1590/0103-6440201300037
Pubmed ID
Authors

Piedad S Cañadas, Ester Berástegui, Patrícia Gaton-Hernández, Léa A B Silva, Giselle A Leite, Roberto S Silva

Abstract

This study compared the physicochemical properties and interfacial adaptation to canal walls of Endo-CPM-Sealer, Sealapex and Activ GP with the well-established AH Plus sealer. The following analyses were performed: radiopacity, pH variation and solubility using samples of each material and scanning electron microscopy of root-filled bovine incisors to evaluate the interfacial adaptation. Data were analyzed by the parametric and no-parametric tests (α=0.05). All materials were in accordance with the ANSI/ADA requirements for radiopacity. Endo-CPM-Sealer presented the lowest radiopacity values and AH Plus was the most radiopaque sealer (p=0.0001). Except for ActiV GP, which was acidic, all other sealers had basic chemical nature and released hydroxyl ions. Regarding solubility, all materials met the ANSI/ADA recommendations, with no statistically significant difference between the sealers (p=0.0834). AH Plus presented the best adaptation to canal walls in the middle (p=0.0023) and apical (p=0.0012) thirds, while the sealers Activ GP and Endo-CPM-Sealer had poor adaptation to the canal walls. All sealers, except for ActiV GP, were alkaline and all of them fulfilled the ANSI/ADA requirements for radiopacity and solubility. Regarding the interfacial adaptation, AH Plus was superior to the others considering the adaptation to the bovine root canal walls.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 50 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 28%
Student > Postgraduate 7 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 12%
Student > Bachelor 2 4%
Professor 2 4%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 15 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 58%
Computer Science 1 2%
Unspecified 1 2%
Materials Science 1 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 17 34%
Attention Score in Context

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 23 November 2015.
All research outputs
#19,944,994
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Brazilian Dental Journal
#160
of 284 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#183,216
of 265,645 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Brazilian Dental Journal
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 284 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.6. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 265,645 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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