↓ Skip to main content

Beneficial Oral Biofilms as Smart Bioactive Interfaces

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Microbiology, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
43 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
Beneficial Oral Biofilms as Smart Bioactive Interfaces
Published in
Frontiers in Microbiology, January 2018
DOI 10.3389/fmicb.2018.00107
Pubmed ID
Authors

Beatrice Gutt, Qun Ren, Irmgard Hauser-Gerspach, Piotr Kardas, Stefan Stübinger, Monika Astasov-Frauenhoffer, Tuomas Waltimo

Abstract

Periodontitis is a very common health problem caused by formation of pathogenic bacterial biofilm that triggers inflammation resulting in either reversible gingivitis or irreversible periodontal hard and soft tissue damages, leading to loss of teeth when left untreated. Commensal bacteria play an important role in oral health in many aspects. Mainly by colonizing oral tissues, they (i) contribute to maturation of immune response, and (ii) foreclose attachment of pathobiont and, therefore, prevent from infection. The main goal of the study was to investigate if blocking of receptors on a commensal biofilm can prevent or reduce the attachment of pathogenic strains. To do so, biofilm produced by commensalStreptococcus sanguiniswas treated with whole cell lysate of pathobiontsFusobacterium nucleatumorPorphyromonas gingivalis, followed by incubation with respective strain(s). The study revealed significant reduction in pathobiont adhesion to lysate-treated commensal biofilm. Therefore, adhesion of pathobionts onto the lysate-blocked biofilm was hindered; however, not completely eliminated supporting the idea that such approach in the oral cavity would benefit the production of a well-balanced and healthy bioactive interface.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 43 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 8 19%
Student > Master 8 19%
Researcher 6 14%
Other 3 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 7%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 11 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 26%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 21%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 7%
Engineering 3 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 5%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 12 28%
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 16 February 2018.
All research outputs
#15,492,327
of 23,023,224 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Microbiology
#15,369
of 25,143 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#269,593
of 440,208 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Microbiology
#363
of 539 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,023,224 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 25,143 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 440,208 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 539 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.