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 |
Evaluation of the WaveOne Gold and One Shape New Generation in Reducing Enterococcus faecalis from Root Canal
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Brazilian Dental Journal, May 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1590/0103-6440201801910 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Raquel Esmeralda Guillén, Cleber Keiti Nabeshima, Hector Caballero-Flores, Miguel Roig Cayón, Montse Mercadé, Silvana Cai, Manoel Eduardo de Lima Machado |
| Abstract |
The aim of this study was to evaluate the WaveOne Gold and One Shape New Generation systems regarding the bacterial removal from root canals infected with Enterococcus faecalis by comparing them to the conventional WaveOne and One Shape systems. Forty-eight distobuccal root canals of maxillary molars sterilized with ethylene oxide were infected with E. faecalis for 21 days, and then root canal initial bacterial sample was collected with paper cones and plated on M-enterococcus agar. The specimens were randomly divided into 4 groups according to the instrumentation: WaveOne Gold, One Shape New Generation, WaveOne and One Shape. After instrumentation, samples were collected with use of scraping and paper cones at immediate and 7 days after instrumentation. The bacterial reduction was calculated and then made intragroup analysis by Friedman test and intergroup analysis by Kruskal-Wallis with Dunn's post-hoc test, all at 5% significance. All techniques significantly reduced the number of bacteria in the root canal (p<0.05). WaveOne Gold and One Shape New Generation promoted higher bacterial reduction than WaveOne and One Shape systems (p<0.05), but no significant difference was found between WaveOne Gold and One Shape New Generation or between WaveOne and One Shape (p>0.05). Novel single-file systems promote better bacterial removal than the conventional single-file systems. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 45 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 9% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 5 | 11% |
| Unknown | 22 | 49% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 17 | 38% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 2% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 2% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 2% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Unknown | 20 | 44% |
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 17 January 2019.
All research outputs
#19,951,180
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from Brazilian Dental Journal
#160
of 284 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#249,516
of 339,234 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Brazilian Dental Journal
#3
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 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 339,234 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 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.