↓ Skip to main content

The myth of oral hygiene using synthetic mouthwash products

Overview of attention for article published in SpringerPlus, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 Mendeley
Title
The myth of oral hygiene using synthetic mouthwash products
Published in
SpringerPlus, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40064-016-3158-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ghulam Zahara Jahangir, Durre Shahwar Ashraf, Idrees Ahmad Nasir, Madeha Sadiq, Sobia Shahzad, Farah Naz, Muhammad Iqbal, Afifa Saeed

Abstract

The synthetic oral cleansing and teeth whitening products like mouthwashes exert adverse effects on teeth, gums and mucous membrane of oral cavity and their extensive use is being criticized. Determining the effect of frequent use of mouthwashes, human cheek cells and their DNA have been studied. Five mouthwash brands were tested and their effects were examined on membrane and DNA of human cheek cells which were found to be very expressive and severe. The DNA, also, received severe damage and breaks developed in its double stranded structure resulting in detachment of small fragments from DNA. The statistical analysis, also, showed significant difference P < 0.005 between the values obtained for DNA double strand breaks for different mouthwashes (and standard mutagen) as compared to untreated control. The study revealed that damage to DNA increases many folds when different mouthwashes are combined. Essential oils of six spice plants (black pepper, clove, black seasam, cinamon, carom seeds and cumin) were evaluated for possessing anti-mutagenic property. These essential oils were found effectively protective against the DNA damaging effect of mouthwashes but could not inhibit it completely. Black pepper, clove, black seasam, cinamon, and cumin were stronger protective as compared to carom seeds.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 41 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 12 29%
Student > Master 4 10%
Other 3 7%
Researcher 2 5%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 5%
Other 7 17%
Unknown 11 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 29%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 12%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 12 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 September 2017.
All research outputs
#3,674,440
of 22,886,568 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#218
of 1,850 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#63,123
of 337,017 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#35
of 194 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,886,568 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,850 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 337,017 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 194 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.