↓ Skip to main content

Successful and failed mini-implants: microbiological evaluation and quantification of bacterial endotoxin

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Applied Oral Science, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 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
Successful and failed mini-implants: microbiological evaluation and quantification of bacterial endotoxin
Published in
Journal of Applied Oral Science, July 2018
DOI 10.1590/1678-7757-2017-0631
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marcela Cristina Damião Andrucioli, Mírian Aiko Nakane Matsumoto, Maria Conceição Pereira Saraiva, Magda Feres, Luciene Cristina de Figueiredo, Carlos Artério Sorgi, Lucia Helena Faccioli, Raquel Assed Bezerra da Silva, Lea Assed Bezerra da Silva, Paulo Nelson-Filho

Abstract

Using two groups of mini-implants (successful and failed) the objectives of this in vivo study were: to evaluate the microbial contamination by the checkerboard DNA-DNA hybridization technique and to quantify the bacterial endotoxin by the limulus amebocyte lysate assay. The 15 successful and 10 failed mini-implants (1.6 mm diameter × 7.0 or 9.0 mm long), placed in the maxilla and/or mandible, were obtained from 15 patients undergoing orthodontic treatment. Data were analyzed statistically by the Wilcoxon rank-sum test using the SAS software (a=0.05). All 40 microbial species were detected in both groups of mini-implants, with different frequencies. No differences were observed between the groups with respect to microbial complexes (blue, purple, yellow, green, orange, red and other species) and endotoxin quantification (p>0.05). Neither microbial contamination nor endotoxin quantification was determinant for the early loss of stability of the mini-implants.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 46 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 7 15%
Student > Master 6 13%
Student > Postgraduate 5 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 7%
Other 2 4%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 18 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 37%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 7%
Unspecified 1 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 21 46%