↓ Skip to main content

Controlling Streptococcus mutans and Staphylococcus aureus biofilms with direct current and chlorhexidine

Overview of attention for article published in AMB Express, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
45 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
111 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
Controlling Streptococcus mutans and Staphylococcus aureus biofilms with direct current and chlorhexidine
Published in
AMB Express, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13568-017-0505-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hao Wang, Dacheng Ren

Abstract

Microbial biofilms formed on biomaterials are major causes of chronic infections. Among them, Gram-positive bacteria Streptococcus mutans and Staphylococcus aureus are important pathogens causing infections associated with dental caries (tooth-decay) and other medical implants. Unfortunately, current antimicrobial approaches are ineffective in disrupting established biofilms and new methods are needed to improve the efficacy. In this study, we report that the biofilm cells of S. mutans and S. aureus can be effectively killed by low-level direct current (DC) and through synergy in concurrent treatment with DC and chlorhexidine (CHX) at low concentrations. For example, after treatment with 28 µA/cm(2) DC and 50 µg/mL CHX for 1 h, the viability of biofilm cells was reduced by approximately 4 and 5 logs for S. mutans and S. aureus, respectively. These results are useful for developing more effective approaches to control pathogenic biofilms.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 111 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 111 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 17 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 13%
Student > Master 10 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 5%
Researcher 6 5%
Other 10 9%
Unknown 48 43%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 24%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 10%
Immunology and Microbiology 7 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 5%
Chemistry 3 3%
Other 9 8%
Unknown 49 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 17 November 2017.
All research outputs
#14,959,314
of 23,008,860 outputs
Outputs from AMB Express
#349
of 1,240 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#192,253
of 324,977 outputs
Outputs of similar age from AMB Express
#16
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,008,860 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,240 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 324,977 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 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 57% of its contemporaries.