The aim of this study was to evaluate the bacterial reduction promoted by ProTaper Next and Twisted File by comparing to ProTaper Universal and manual technique. Sixty distobuccal root canals of maxillary molars sterilized with ethylene oxide were contaminated with Enterococcus faecalis broth culture. After incubation for 21 days, bacterial samples were collected and cultured on m-Enterococcus agar plates. The root canals were divided into 4 groups, according to the system used for instrumentation: ProTaper Next, Twisted File, ProTaper Universal, and crown down manual technique. Other 8 uncontaminated root canals were control asepsis. Bacterial samples were collected immediately and 7 days after instrumentation. The bacterial reduction was calculated and then made intragroup analysis by paired t-test and intergroup analysis by ANOVA and Tukey tests, all at 5% significance. All techniques significantly reduced the bacterial number in the root canal (p<0.05). ProTaper Next and Twisted File resulted in more bacterial reduction than ProTaper Universal and manual technique (p<0.05). ProTaper Next and Twisted File were similar (p>0.05). It can be concluded that ProTaper Next and Twisted File promote a higher bacterial reduction than Protaper Universal and manual technique.
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 08 December 2017.
All research outputs
#22,764,772
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Brazilian Dental Journal
#197
of 284 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#284,752
of 324,453 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Brazilian Dental Journal
#3
of 5 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 284 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.6. 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 324,453 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 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.
