A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Glass ionomer microleakage from preparations by an Er/YAG laser or a high-speed handpiece. | LitMetric

Glass ionomer microleakage from preparations by an Er/YAG laser or a high-speed handpiece.

J Dent

Department of Paediatric Dentistry, 337A College of Dentistry, University of Illinois at Chicago, 801 South Paulina Street, Chicago, IL 60612-7212, USA.

Published: May 2002

Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare microleakage of glass ionomer materials (GIC) using two different modes of cavity preparation: a high-speed hand piece and an erbium/yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Er/YAG) laser.

Methods: Eighty caries free permanent molar teeth had class V preparations cut on both the buccal and lingual surfaces. The high-speed hand piece was used to prepare a class V cavity preparation on the buccal surface and an Er/YAG laser was used to prepare a class V cavity preparation on the lingual surface. GIC or resin modified GIC was used as the restorative material. The teeth were thermocycled for 7000 cycles, placed in 2% basic fushin for 24h, sectioned in the center of each restoration, and analyzed under a stereomicroscope.

Results: There was no statistical difference in microleakage between the two modes of cavity preparations. The gingival margins had more microleakage than the occlusal margins for both GIC materials and the resin modified GIC showed significantly more leakage than the conventional GIC.

Conclusions: The Er/YAG laser provided an equivalent method of tooth removal when evaluated for microleakage of GIC materials compared to a high-speed hand piece.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0300-5712(02)00011-8DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

er/yag laser
12
cavity preparation
12
high-speed hand
12
hand piece
12
glass ionomer
8
modes cavity
8
prepare class
8
class cavity
8
resin modified
8
modified gic
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!