↓ Skip to main content

Micro-CT Evaluation of Non-instrumented Canal Areas with Different Enlargements Performed by NiTi Systems

Overview of attention for article published in Brazilian Dental Journal, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
73 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
97 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
Micro-CT Evaluation of Non-instrumented Canal Areas with Different Enlargements Performed by NiTi Systems
Published in
Brazilian Dental Journal, December 2015
DOI 10.1590/0103-6440201300116
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gustavo De-Deus, Felipe Gonçalves Belladonna, Emmanuel João Nogueira Leal Silva, Juliana Roter Marins, Erick Miranda Souza, Renata Perez, Ricardo Tadeu Lopes, Marco Aurélio Versiani, Sidnei Paciornik, Aline de Almeida Neves

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the percentage of non-instrumented area of root canals prepared with different enlargements using single-file reciprocating systems (Reciproc and WaveOne) and a conventional multi-file rotary (BioRaCe) system by micro-computed tomographic analysis. Thirty mesial roots of mandibular molars with moderate curvature (10° to 20°) presenting a type II Vertucci canal configuration and similar internal volume were chosen and scanned at an isotropic resolution of 14.16 µm. The sample was assigned to 3 groups (n=10) according to the system used for root canal preparation: Reciproc, WaveOne, and BioRaCe groups. Second and third scans were taken after the canals were prepared with instruments sizes 25 and 40, respectively. The recorded images of the surface area voxels of the canals, before and after preparation were examined from the furcation level to the apex to quantify the non-instrumented surface. Statistical data were compared using GLM for repeated-measures with a significance level set at 5%. Instrumentation systems did not influence the percentage of untouched root canal surfaces (p=0.690) whilst a significant reduction in the percentage of static voxels was observed after the enlargement of the root canal (p=0.010) in all groups (p=0.507). None of the systems was able to prepare the entire surface area of the mesial root canal of mandibular molars. The increased final apical size resulted in a significant positive effect on the shaping ability of the tested systems.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 97 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Poland 1 1%
Unknown 96 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 29 30%
Researcher 8 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 6%
Student > Bachelor 6 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 4%
Other 15 15%
Unknown 29 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 52 54%
Materials Science 2 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Social Sciences 2 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 1%
Other 5 5%
Unknown 33 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 10 January 2016.
All research outputs
#15,353,264
of 22,837,982 outputs
Outputs from Brazilian Dental Journal
#95
of 258 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#227,260
of 387,564 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Brazilian Dental Journal
#4
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,837,982 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 258 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.8. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 387,564 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.