Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Journal of Dental Research
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Novak, K.F.
Right arrow Articles by Novak, M.J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Novak, K.F.
Right arrow Articles by Novak, M.J.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Effects of Low-energy Shock Waves on Oral Bacteria

K.F. Novak1, M. Govindaswami1, J.L. Ebersole1, W. Schaden2, N. House3 and M.J. Novak1,*

1 Center for Oral Health Research, College of Dentistry, University of Kentucky, 414, Health Sciences Research Building, Lexington, KY 40536-0305, USA;
2 Trauma Center Meidling, Vienna, Austria; and
3 Tissue Regeneration Technologies, Woodstock, GA 30188, USA


Figure 1
View larger version (19K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Figure 1. Pressure waveform for the Dermagold® unit at low energy. The plot shows the maximum and minimum pressures (p) created in megapascals (MPa) over time (t) in microseconds (µs).

 

Figure 2
View larger version (14K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Figure 2. Effect of low-energy ESWT on S. mutans ATCC 25175. Colony-forming units (CFU) are expressed as a percentage of controls in relation to number of shock-wave pulses and energy flux density (EFD). Data are expressed as the mean ± standard deviations of triplicate experiments. *Indicates a significant (p < 0.006) decrease in CFU vs. controls; #indicates a significant (p = 0.017) decrease in CFU vs. corresponding pulse point at EFD 0.22 mJ/mm2; and {psi} indicates a significant (p = 0.025) decrease in CFU vs. corresponding pulse point at EFD 0.12 mJ/mm2.

 

Figure 3
View larger version (15K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Figure 3. Effect of low-energy ESWT on P. gingivalis 381. CFU are expressed as a percentage of the control in relation to number of shock-wave pulses and EFD. Data are expressed as the mean ± standard deviations of triplicate experiments. *Indicates a significant increase in CFU (p < 0.006) vs. controls at EFD 0.33 mJ/mm2; #indicates a significant decrease in CFU (p < 0.006) vs. 100 and 200 pulses at EFD 0.22 mJ/mm2; {psi} indicates a significant decrease in CFU at EFD 0.3 mJ/mm2 (p < 0.006) vs. corresponding pulse point at EFD 0.22 mJ/mm2.

 

Journal of Dental Research, Vol. 87, No. 10, 928-931 (2008)
DOI: 10.1177/154405910808701009
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?