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 |
Efficacy of chemomechanical caries removal in reducing cariogenic microbiota: a randomized clinical trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Brazilian Oral Research, August 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1590/1807-3107bor-2014.vol28.0031 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Michelle Mikhael Ammari, Luiz Flávio Martins Moliterno, Raphael Hirata Júnior, Mariana Canano Séllos, Vera Mendes Soviero, Wagner Pereira Coutinho Filho |
| Abstract |
The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of chemochemical methods (Carisolv™ and Papacárie®) versus the manual method (excavators) in reducing the cariogenic microbiota in dentine caries of primary teeth. Forty-six healthy children (5 to 9 years old) having at least one primary tooth with a cavitated dentine carious lesion were included in the study. The teeth presented no clinical or radiographic signs of pulpal involvement. The sample of 74 teeth was randomly divided into three different groups: Papacárie® (n = 25), Carisolv™ (n = 27) and Manual (n = 22). Samples of carious and sound dentine were collected with sterile excavators before and after caries removal in the three groups. The dentine samples were transferred to glass tubes containing a 1mL thioglycollate medium used as a carrier and enriched for microbiological detection of mutans streptococci and Lactobacillus spp, after incubation for 6h at room temperature. The minimum detection value for colony forming units (CFU) was 3.3 x 102 CFU/ml, and the results were converted into scores from 0 to 4. A significant difference was observed in relation to the microbiological scores before and after caries removal for all methods (Wilcoxon test; p < 0.001). The use of chemomechanical methods for caries removal did not improve the reduction of cariogenic microorganisms in dentine caries lesions, in comparison with manual excavation. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 106 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Indonesia | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 105 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 20 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 13 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 12 | 11% |
| Researcher | 7 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 12 | 11% |
| Unknown | 36 | 34% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 57 | 54% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 2% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 2% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 3% |
| Unknown | 37 | 35% |
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 20 November 2014.
All research outputs
#17,285,668
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Brazilian Oral Research
#194
of 509 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#147,669
of 246,633 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Brazilian Oral Research
#7
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 509 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.3. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 246,633 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.