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 |
Efficacy of different irrigant activation techniques for cleaning root canal anastomosis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Oral Health, March 2023
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12903-023-02835-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
O. K. Montaser, D. M. Fayyad, N. Abdelsalam |
| Abstract |
This study compared in vitro the anastomosis cleaning efficacy of different irrigant activation techniques at different levels; control group non-activation (NA), passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI) using Irrisafe, and EDDY sonic activation. Sixty anastomosis-containing mesial roots of mandibular molars were mounted in resin, sectioned at 2, 4, and 6 mm from the apex. Then reassembled and instrumented in a copper cube. For the irrigation technique roots were randomly divided into 3 groups (n = 20): group 1: NA, group 2: Irrisafe, group 3: EDDY. Stereomicroscopic images of anastomoses were taken after instrumentation and after irrigant activation. ImageJ program was used to calculate the percentage of anastomosis cleanliness. The percentage of cleanliness was calculated before and after final irrigation within each group and were then compared using paired t-tests. Intergroup and intragroup analyses were performed to compare between different activation techniques at the same root canal level (2, 4 and 6 mm) (intergroup) and to evaluate if each technique had different cleanliness efficacy according to the root canal level (intragroup) using one-way analysis of variance and post hoc tests (p < 0.05). All three irrigation techniques significantly improved anastomosis cleanliness (p < 0.001). Both activation techniques were significantly better than the control group at all levels. Intergroup comparison revealed that EDDY significantly achieved the best overall anastomosis cleanliness. The difference between EDDY and Irrisafe was significant in favor to EDDY at 2 mm and insignificant at 4 and 6 mm. The intragroup comparison showed that improvement in anastomosis cleanliness (i2-i1) in the needle irrigation without activation group (NA) was significantly higher in the apical 2 mm level compared to the 4 & 6 levels. While the difference in anastomosis cleanliness improvement (i2-i1) between levels in both Irrisafe and EDDY groups was insignificant. Irrigant activation improves anastomosis cleanliness. EDDY was the most efficient in cleaning anastomoses located in the critical apical part of the root canal. Cleaning and disinfection of the root canal system followed by apical and coronal sealing is the key for healing or prevention of apical periodontitis. Remnants of debris and microorganisms retained within the anastomoses (isthmuses), or other root canal irregularities may lead to persistent apical periodontitis. Proper irrigation and activation are essential for cleaning root canal anastomoses. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Egypt | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 20 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Lecturer | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 5% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 5% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 12 | 60% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 20% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 13 | 65% |
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 14 March 2023.
All research outputs
#15,301,231
of 23,532,144 outputs
Outputs from BMC Oral Health
#703
of 1,542 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#177,311
of 352,926 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Oral Health
#11
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,532,144 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 1,542 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 352,926 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 48 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 58% of its contemporaries.