↓ Skip to main content

Treatment of various degrees of white spot lesions using resin infiltration—in vitro study

Overview of attention for article published in Progress in Orthodontics, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
92 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
Treatment of various degrees of white spot lesions using resin infiltration—in vitro study
Published in
Progress in Orthodontics, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s40510-018-0223-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bassant A. Abbas, Eiman S. Marzouk, Abbas R. Zaher

Abstract

This study was conducted to evaluate the efficiency of resin infiltration to improve the color of white spot lesions (WSLs) and to estimate the effect of different numbers of etching and resin infiltrant applications on the color change of WSLs with various depths. Ninety-six sound extracted premolars were subjected to acid attack inducing different depths of WSLs. Using a DIAGNOdent, teeth were divided into four main groups according to the depth of the WSLs: shallow enamel, deep enamel, shallow dentine, and deep dentine without cavitation. Then each of the main groups was subdivided into four groups: six teeth each with different protocols of resin infiltration as follows: 1 etching + 1 infiltrant application (EA), 1 etching + 2 infiltrant applications (EAA), 2 etchings + 1 infiltrant application (EEA), 2 etchings + 2 infiltrant applications (EEAA). Spectrophotometric analysis was measured at baseline (T0), after inducing the WSLs (T1), and following resin infiltration application (T2) for each group. In shallow enamel, EA produced the least mean color difference (1.62 ± 0.85), with high significant difference (P < 0.001), when compared with the clinically detectable threshold (ΔE = 3.7). While in deep enamel, EAA showed the least mean color change (1.95 ± 0.4), with P < 0.001 when compared with the critical value. Also, in shallow dentine, the least mean change was noticed with EAA (3.0 ± 0.45), with P < 0.001 when compared with the clinical color detection threshold. Furthermore, in deep dentine, EAA had the least mean difference (3.76 ± 0.6) but with no significant difference, when compared with the clinically detectable threshold. As the WSL got deeper, the color of the lesion became more clinically visible. In shallow enamel, the best treatment option was one etching with one resin infiltrant application. For deep enamel and shallow dentine, one etching with two applications of infiltrant gave the best lesion masking. In deep dentine, it is advisable to perform one etching with two infiltration steps, taking in consideration that all deep dentine lesions without cavitation were partially masked, remained clinically detectable, and might require more invasive restorative procedures.

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 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 92 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 9%
Student > Bachelor 8 9%
Researcher 7 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 4%
Other 13 14%
Unknown 33 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 49 53%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 1%
Computer Science 1 1%
Decision Sciences 1 1%
Other 3 3%
Unknown 35 38%
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 07 August 2018.
All research outputs
#19,951,180
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from Progress in Orthodontics
#159
of 255 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#249,118
of 340,721 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Progress in Orthodontics
#5
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 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 255 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 340,721 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.