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 |
Effect of ultrasound streaming on the disinfection of flattened root canals prepared by rotary and reciprocating systems
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Applied Oral Science, January 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1590/1678-7757-2016-0358 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Layla Reginna Silva Munhoz de Vasconcelos, Raquel Zanin Midena, Paloma Gagliardi Minotti, Thais Cristina Pereira, Marco Antonio Hungaro Duarte, Flaviana Bombarda de Andrade |
| Abstract |
New technical and scientific developments have been advocated to promote the success of the endodontic treatment. In addition to rotary and reciprocating systems, irrigating solution agitation has been suggested and passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI) is the most used. To evaluate, in vitro, the effect of ultrasound streaming (US) in the disinfection of flattened root canal systems prepared by the ProTaper, BioRaCe and Reciproc systems, utilizing the microbiological culture. Extracted human mandibular incisors (n=84) were used. Suspensions of Enterococcus faecalis (ATCC 29212) were standardized and inserted along with the teeth immersed in brain-heart infusion (BHI) broth. The contamination was made following a protocol during 5 days. The teeth were randomly divided into six groups: G1, ProTaper Universal; G2, ProTaper Universal with US; G3, BioRaCe; G4, BioRaCe with US; G5, Reciproc; and G6, Reciproc with US. Irrigation was performed with saline solution. After biomechanical preparation, microbiological samples were performed with sterilized paper points, which were diluted and spread on BHI agar; after 48 h, the colony forming units (CFU/mL) were counted for each sample. Groups using ultrasonic agitation presented a greater antibacterial effect than the other ones, even using saline solution as irrigant. The ProTaper Universal system showed the best antibacterial activity of the tested systems (median of 0 CFU/mL with and without surfactant or ultrasonic activation [PUI]). Even with PUI, Reciproc (median of 2.5 CFU/mL with PUI and 5 without it) could not reduce as many colonies as ProTaper Universal without US. The BioRaCe system had greater bacterial reduction when using US (median of 0 CFU/mL with PUI and 30 without it). US promoted greater reduction in the number of bacteria in the flattened root canals prepared with nickel-titanium mechanized systems. Regarding the instruments used, the ProTaper Universal system was the most effective in reducing the bacterial number. |
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 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 72 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 12 | 17% |
| Professor | 5 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 6% |
| Unspecified | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 16 | 22% |
| Unknown | 28 | 39% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 28 | 39% |
| Unspecified | 3 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 3% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 1% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 5 | 7% |
| Unknown | 32 | 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 27 October 2017.
All research outputs
#22,764,772
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Applied Oral Science
#496
of 596 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#362,560
of 421,709 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Applied Oral Science
#21
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 596 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 421,709 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.