↓ Skip to main content

Antiseptics and microcosm biofilm formation on titanium surfaces

Overview of attention for article published in Brazilian Oral Research, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
80 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
Antiseptics and microcosm biofilm formation on titanium surfaces
Published in
Brazilian Oral Research, March 2016
DOI 10.1590/1807-3107bor-2016.vol30.0030
Pubmed ID
Authors

Georgia Verardi, Maximiliano Sérgio Cenci, Tamires Timm Maske, Bruna Webber, Luciana Ruschel dos Santos

Abstract

Oral rehabilitation with osseointegrated implants is a way to restore esthetics and masticatory function in edentulous patients, but bacterial colonization around the implants may lead to mucositis or peri-implantitis and consequent implant loss. Peri-implantitis is the main complication of oral rehabilitation with dental implants and, therefore, it is necessary to take into account the potential effects of antiseptics such as chlorhexidine (CHX), chloramine T (CHT), triclosan (TRI), and essential oils (EO) on bacterial adhesion and on biofilm formation. To assess the action of these substances, we used the microcosm technique, in which the oral environment and periodontal conditions are simulated in vitro on titanium discs with different surface treatments (smooth surface - SS, acid-etched smooth surface - AESS, sand-blasted surface - SBS, and sand-blasted and acid-etched surface - SBAES). Roughness measurements yielded the following results: SS: 0.47 µm, AESS: 0.43 µm, SB: 0.79 µm, and SBAES: 0.72 µm. There was statistical difference only between SBS and AESS. There was no statistical difference among antiseptic treatments. However, EO and CHT showed lower bacterial counts compared with the saline solution treatment (control group). Thus, the current gold standard (CHX) did not outperform CHT and EO, which were efficient in reducing the biofilm biomass compared with saline solution.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 79 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 10 13%
Student > Master 9 11%
Researcher 7 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 9%
Student > Postgraduate 6 8%
Other 13 16%
Unknown 28 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 30%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 10%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Materials Science 2 3%
Other 12 15%
Unknown 29 36%
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 17 March 2016.
All research outputs
#20,656,820
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Brazilian Oral Research
#296
of 509 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#232,422
of 313,895 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Brazilian Oral Research
#9
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 509 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.3. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 313,895 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.