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: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

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

[Restoration of Class V cavities with the Ormocer-based filling system Admira]. | LitMetric

The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of an Ormocer-based restorative system for treatment of mixed carious and non-carious class V cavities. 70 restorations in 25 patients were placed with the condensable material Admira (group 1). In a second group of eight patients, the treatment of 25 cavities took place with the flowable material Admira Flow in combination with composite-bonded to-flowable technique or with the flowable material alone. The clinical evaluation was carried out using a modified clinical criteria system (Böhm et al. 1991) after Lutz et al. (1977) and Ryge (1980). Restorations of group 1 reached the two-year-level, those of group 2 the one-year-level. Good results were obtained with both condensable material and flowable material despite the small number of failures in the various clinical criteria. The retention rate of the flowable composite was 100% after six and twelve months and was the only parameter superior to those of the condensable material (98.6% resp. 93.9%). After two years, group 1 showed significant differences to base line with respect to volume behaviour and surface texture. No significant differences were determined with respect to of colour match, bond zone morphology and clinical acceptance. A SEM evaluation of replicas confirmed clinical results but also revealed clinically invisible failures of bond zone morphology.

Download full-text PDF

Source

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

condensable material
12
flowable material
12
class cavities
8
material admira
8
clinical criteria
8
bond zone
8
zone morphology
8
clinical
6
material
6
group
5

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!