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
Two ultrasonic techniques were compared for their ability to clean and shape root canals in extracted human teeth. One technique was recommended by the manufacturer (Cavi-Endo, Dentsply), while the other was a modification by the authors of the stepdown technique. Mesiobuccal root canals of molars were instrumented using these techniques, after which a silicone impression material was injected into the prepared canals. The roots were then split longitudinally and one half was stained for debris scoring while the silicone impressions were assessed for shape. The results showed that the modified technique produced significantly cleaner canals than the recommended technique. The shaping ability of both techniques was difficult to evaluate because of the complex morphology of molar root canals. The final shape of the prepared canal depended more on the initial shape than on the instrumentation technique.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.1992.tb00760.x | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!