↓ Skip to main content

Antimicrobial residual effects of irrigation regimens with maleic acid in infected root canals

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Biological Research, February 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 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
Antimicrobial residual effects of irrigation regimens with maleic acid in infected root canals
Published in
Journal of Biological Research, February 2015
DOI 10.1186/s40709-015-0025-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carmen María Ferrer-Luque, Silvia González-Castillo, Matilde Ruiz-Linares, María Teresa Arias-Moliz, Alberto Rodríguez-Archilla, Pilar Baca

Abstract

The success of endodontic treatment depends largely on the control of microorganisms present in infected root canals. The aim of this study was to determine the residual antimicrobial activity of several final irrigation protocols with 7% maleic acid (MA) alone and combined with chlorhexidine (CHX), cetrimide (CTR) or both, in root canals infected with Enterococcus faecalis. Biofilms of E. faecalis were grown in uniradicular roots for 4 weeks. A total of 72 specimens were divided into 5 experimental groups according to the final irrigation regime used: Group 1: 2.5% NaOCl; Group 2: 7% MA; Group 3: 7% MA + 0.2% CTR; Group 4: 7% MA + 2% CHX; Group 5: 7% MA + 0.2% CTR + 2% CHX; and 0.9% saline solution. Twelve roots (2/group) that were instrumented and not infected served as negative or sterility controls. The proportion of ungrown samples over 60 days was evaluated using non-parametric Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. Differences among groups were tested using the log-rank test (p< 0.05). The association of MA with CHX and CHX + CTR as final irrigating solutions showed the best results, 5 and 4 samples out of 12, respectively, and without differences between them (p = 0.928), followed by 7% MA + 0.2% CTR with 7 out of 12. The 7% MA (11/12) group showed significant differences with respect to the groups in which MA was combined with CHX (p < 0.005) and CHX + CTR (p < 0.005). Final irrigating solutions of 7% MA combined with 2% CHX or 2% CHX + 0.2% CTR were found to effectively improve antimicrobial root canal disinfection.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 19%
Student > Postgraduate 5 19%
Student > Bachelor 3 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Other 4 15%
Unknown 8 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 48%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 7%
Unspecified 1 4%
Materials Science 1 4%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 9 33%
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 20 May 2015.
All research outputs
#22,756,649
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Biological Research
#65
of 77 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#330,518
of 385,282 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Biological Research
#3
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 77 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 385,282 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.