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
This clinical study compared the performance of complex amalgam restorations retained with self-threading pins or bonded with a filled, 4-META-based resin. Sixty amalgam restorations (28 pin-retained and 32 bonded), each replacing at least one cusp, were placed. Self-threading stainless steel pins (Coltene-Whaledent) were used in the pin-retained group. A filled, 4-META-based bonding resin (Amalgambond Plus with HPA powder) was used in the bonded group. For both groups, any retention form remaining after removal of an old restoration was left in place but not enhanced. At six years, 11 restorations had failed; eight of which were pin-retained and three bonded. Using Fisher's exact test to compare the groups at six years, there was no significant difference in failure rate, marginal adaptation, marginal discoloration, secondary caries, tooth sensitivity or tooth vitality. At six years, there was no difference in the performance of pin-retained amalgam restorations and bonded amalgam restorations.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!