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 |
LPS levels in root canals after the use of ozone gas and high frequency electrical pulses
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Brazilian Oral Research, March 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1590/1807-3107bor-2016.vol30.0019 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Tiago André Fontoura de Melo, Grasiela Sabrina Longhi Gründling, Francisco Montagner, Alcione Luiz Scur, Liviu Steier, Roberta Kochenborger Scarparo, José Antônio Poli de Figueiredo, Fabiana Vieira Vier-Pelisser |
| Abstract |
The present study aims to verify the effect of ozone gas (OZY® System) and high frequency electric pulse (Endox® System) systems on human root canals previously contaminated with Escherichia colilipopolysaccharide (LPS). Fifty single-rooted teeth had their dental crowns removed and root lengths standardized to 16 mm. The root canals were prepared up to #60 hand K-files and sterilized using gamma radiation with cobalt 60. The specimens were divided into the following five groups (n = 10) based on the disinfection protocol used: OZY® System, one 120-second-pulse (OZY 1p); OZY® System, four 24-second-pulses (OZY 4p); and Endox® System (ENDOX). Contaminated and non-contaminated canals were exposed only to apyrogenic water and used as positive (C+) and negative (C-) controls, respectively. LPS (O55:B55) was administered in all root canals except those belonging to group C-. After performing disinfection, LPS samples were collected from the canals using apyrogenic paper tips. Limulus Amoebocyte Lysate (LAL) was used to quantify the LPS levels, and the data obtained was analyzed using one-way ANOVA. The disinfection protocols used were unable to reduce the LPS levels significantly (p = 0.019). The use of ozone gas and high frequency electric pulses was not effective in eliminating LPS from the root canals. |
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 | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 48 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 6 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 6% |
| Professor | 3 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 9 | 19% |
| Unknown | 18 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 24 | 50% |
| Engineering | 2 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 2% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 8% |
| Unknown | 14 | 29% |
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 11 February 2018.
All research outputs
#19,944,091
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Brazilian Oral Research
#272
of 509 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#218,453
of 314,269 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Brazilian Oral Research
#3
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 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 509 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.3. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 314,269 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.