↓ Skip to main content

Caries progression in non-cavitated fissures after infiltrant application: a 3-year follow-up of a randomized controlled clinical trial

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Applied Oral Science, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
106 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
Caries progression in non-cavitated fissures after infiltrant application: a 3-year follow-up of a randomized controlled clinical trial
Published in
Journal of Applied Oral Science, January 2017
DOI 10.1590/1678-7757-2016-0633
Pubmed ID
Authors

Camillo Anauate-Netto, Laurindo Borelli, Ricardo Amore, Vinicius DI Hipólito, Paulo Henrique Perlatti D'Alpino

Abstract

To evaluate the efficacy of a conservative treatment to prevent the progression of caries using an infiltrant on non-cavitated pit and fissures. This controlled clinical trial selected 23 volunteers with clinically and radiographically non-cavitated occlusal caries among patients presenting a "rather low" to "very high" caries risk. Eighty-six teeth were randomly divided into two experimental groups: teeth receiving a commercial pit-and-fissure sealant (Alpha Seal-DFL) and contralateral teeth receiving Icon infiltrant (DMG). Caries progression was monitored by clinical (laser fluorescence caries detection) and radiographic examination at 12-month intervals over a period of 3 years of monitored caries progression. Probing the sealing materials to detect areas of retention was also used to evaluate marginal integrity. Statistical analysis showed no difference in caries progression using laser fluorescence caries detection when both materials were compared, regardless of the evaluation times (p>0.05). No significance was observed when the marginal sealant integrity of both materials was compared, regardless of the evaluation time (p<0.05). Marginal integrity significantly reduced after 1 year for both materials (p<0.05), but remained stable after 2 and 3 years of evaluation, compared with 1-year results (p>0.05). SEM analysis exhibited a more homogeneous sealing for the infiltrant than obtained by the sealant. The infiltrant was effective to prevent the caries progression in non-cavitated pit-and-fissures after 3 years of clinical evaluation, comparable with the conventional sealant. The infiltrant also presented better results in terms of caries progression at the 3-year evaluation time using the radiographic analysis.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

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 %
Unknown 106 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 18%
Student > Bachelor 14 13%
Researcher 7 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 7%
Professor 4 4%
Other 16 15%
Unknown 39 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 50 47%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 <1%
Decision Sciences 1 <1%
Other 4 4%
Unknown 45 42%
Attention Score in Context

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 04 September 2017.
All research outputs
#15,478,452
of 23,001,641 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Applied Oral Science
#196
of 505 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#257,297
of 421,214 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Applied Oral Science
#7
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,001,641 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 505 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its peers.
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 421,214 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.