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

Comparison of two video-imaging instruments for measuring volumetric shrinkage of dental resin composites. | LitMetric

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to measure the polymerization shrinkage of three dental resin composites using two commercially available video-imaging devices to determine if the devices produced equivalent results.

Methods: Small, semi-spherical specimens of a microhybrid (Venus), microfill (Filtek A110), and flowable (Esthet*X Flow) resin composite were manually formed and light activated for 40s using a light-curing unit. The volumetric polymerization shrinkage of fifteen specimens of each brand of resin composite was measured using the AcuVol and the Drop Shape Analysis System model DSA10 Mk2 (DSAS) video-imaging devices. Mean volumetric shrinkage values were calculated for each resin composite and equivalence was evaluated using the two one-sided tests approach. Differences between the means that were less than approximately 5% of the observed shrinkage were considered indicative of clinical equivalence.

Results: Mean volumetric shrinkage values measured for the resin composites were: Venus (AcuVol, 3.07+/-0.07%; DSAS, 2.90+/-0.07%); Filtek A110 (AcuVol, 2.26+/-0.10%; DSAS, 2.25+/-0.09%); and Esthet*X Flow (AcuVol, 5.01+/-0.17%; DSAS, 5.14+/-0.11%). Statistical analysis revealed that the two imaging devices produced equivalent results for Filtek A110 and Esthet*X Flow but not for Venus.

Conclusions: Video-imaging systems provide an easy method for measuring volumetric shrinkage of resin composites. As with other methods for measuring volumetric shrinkage, however, they are best used to comparatively measure different materials within the same laboratory.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2005.02.004DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

volumetric shrinkage
20
resin composites
16
measuring volumetric
12
filtek a110
12
esthet*x flow
12
resin composite
12
shrinkage
8
dental resin
8
polymerization shrinkage
8
video-imaging devices
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!