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 |
An in vitro study of different material properties of Biodentine compared to ProRoot MTA
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Head & Face Medicine, May 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13005-015-0074-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Markus Kaup, Edgar Schäfer, Till Dammaschke |
| Abstract |
The aim of this study was to compare solubility, microhardness, radiopacity, and setting time of Biodentine with ProRoot MTA. Solubility in distilled water, radioopacity, and setting time were evaluated in accordance with International Standard ISO 6876:2001. In addition, the solubility in Phosphate Buffered Saline (PBS) buffer was determined. For microhardness-testing, ten samples of each cement were produced. All samples were loaded with a diamond indenter point with a weight of 100 g for 30s. All data were analysed using the Student-t-test. Both materials fulfilled the requirements of the International Standard ISO 6876:2001 and showed a solubility of <3% after 24 h. At all exposure times Biodentine was significantly more soluble than ProRoot MTA (p < 0.0001). After immersion in PBS-buffer a precipitation of hydroxyapatite was visible. The Vickers microhardness for Biodentine was significantly higher (62.35 ± 11.55HV) compared with ProRoot MTA (26.93 ± 4.66HV) (p < 0.0001). ProRoot MTA was significantly more radiopaque (6.40 ± 0.06 mm Al) than Biodentine (1.50 ± 0.10 mm Al) (p < 0.0001). The setting time for Biodentine (85.66 ± 6.03 min) was significantly lower than for ProRoot MTA (228.33 ± 2.88 min) (p < 0.0001). Biodentine and ProRoot MTA displayed different material properties. The solubility of both cements was in accordance with the International Standard ISO 6876:2001, whereas ProRoot MTA showed a significantly lower solubility. With regard to microhardness, Biodentine may be used to replace dentine. The radioopacity of Biodentine did not fulfil the requirements laid down in the International Standard ISO 6876:2001. The setting time for ProRoot MTA is significantly higher. Both materials can be used in different indications where specific material properties may be favourable. Hence, the here tested material properties are of clinical relevance. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| South Africa | 1 | 50% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 220 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| India | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 217 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 32 | 15% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 20 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 17 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 7% |
| Researcher | 11 | 5% |
| Other | 43 | 20% |
| Unknown | 81 | 37% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 111 | 50% |
| Chemistry | 3 | 1% |
| Unspecified | 3 | 1% |
| Materials Science | 3 | 1% |
| Engineering | 3 | 1% |
| Other | 15 | 7% |
| Unknown | 82 | 37% |
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 04 May 2015.
All research outputs
#13,941,015
of 22,803,211 outputs
Outputs from Head & Face Medicine
#91
of 334 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#134,007
of 264,373 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Head & Face Medicine
#5
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,803,211 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 334 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 264,373 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 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 64% of its contemporaries.