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 |
Bacterial endotoxin adhesion to different types of orthodontic adhesives
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Applied Oral Science, January 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1590/1678-7757-2016-0434 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Priscilla Coutinho Romualdo, Thaís Rodrigues Guerra, Fábio Lourenço Romano, Raquel Assed Bezerra da Silva, Izaíra Tincani Brandão, Célio Lopes Silva, Lea Assed Bezerra da Silva, Paulo Nelson-Filho |
| Abstract |
The aim of this study was to assess whether LPS adheres to orthodontic adhesive systems, comparing two commercial brands. Forty specimens were fabricated from Transbond XT and Light Bond composite and bonding agent components (n=10/component), then contaminated by immersion in a bacterial endotoxin solution. Contaminated and non-contaminated acrylic resin samples were used as positive and negative control groups, respectively. LPS quantification was performed by the Limulus Amebocyte Lysate QCL-1000™ test. Data obtained were scored and subjected to the Chi-square test using a significance level of 5%. There was endotoxin adhesion to all materials (p<0.05). No statistically significant difference was found between composites/bonding agents and acrylic resin (p>0.05). There was no significant difference (p>0.05) among commercial brands. Affinity of endotoxin was significantly greater for the bonding agents (p=0.0025). LPS adhered to both orthodontic adhesive systems. Regardless of the brand, the endotoxin had higher affinity for the bonding agents than for the composites. There is no previous study assessing the affinity of LPS for orthodontic adhesive systems. This study revealed that LPS adheres to orthodontic adhesive systems. Therefore, additional care is recommended to orthodontic applications of these materials. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 22 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 4 | 18% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 14% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 14% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 9% |
| Unknown | 6 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 36% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 5% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 5% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 10 | 45% |
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 07 October 2017.
All research outputs
#22,764,772
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Applied Oral Science
#496
of 596 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#362,560
of 421,709 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Applied Oral Science
#21
of 28 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 596 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. 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 421,709 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.