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 |
In vitro antibacterial activity of a silicone-based endodontic sealer and two conventional sealers
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Brazilian Oral Research, February 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1590/1807-3107bor-2016.vol30.0018 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Marcela Wainstein, Renata Dornelles Morgental, Silvana Beltrami Gonçalves Waltrick, Sílvia Dias Oliveira, Fabiana Vieira Vier-Pelisser, José Antonio Poli Figueiredo, Liviu Steier, Cauana Oliva Tavares, Roberta Kochenborger Scarparo |
| Abstract |
The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the modification in the silver component is capable of providing GuttaFlow 2 with antibacterial activity against Enterococcus faecalis compared with epoxy resin-based (AH Plus) and zinc oxide and eugenol-based (Endofill) sealers. The antibacterial activity was evaluated using a reference strain of E. faecalis (ATCC 29212). Freshly mixed sealers were subjected to the agar diffusion test (ADT), while the direct contact test (DCT) was performed after materials setting. ADT results were obtained through measurements, in millimeters, of the inhibition zones promoted by the materials, using a digital caliper. In DCT, values of CFU/mL promoted by the three sealers were compared in three experimental periods (1 min, 1 h, and 24 h). The data were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn post-hoc tests (p < 0.05). In both ADT and DCT, GuttaFlow 2 presented no effect against E. faecalis, while Endofill and AH Plus showed similar inhibition zones. Endofill was the only material capable of reducing bacterial growth in DCT. In conclusion, modifications in the silver particle of GuttaFlow 2 did not result in a sealer with antibacterial effect against E. faecalis. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Poland | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 76 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Postgraduate | 10 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 8% |
| Researcher | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 12 | 16% |
| Unknown | 29 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 36 | 47% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 4 | 5% |
| Unknown | 30 | 39% |
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 25 February 2016.
All research outputs
#22,760,732
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Brazilian Oral Research
#384
of 509 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#269,521
of 313,049 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Brazilian Oral Research
#10
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 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 509 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.3. 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 313,049 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.