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
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to photoelastically compare the stresses generated by loads on primary canines with facial restorations of different stiffness.
Methods: Composite photoelastic models of a typical maxillary primary canine were fabricated using individual simulant materials for enamel, dentin, periodontal ligament, and alveolar bone. Models were made with identical facial preparations included either near the cementoenamel junction or at 2 mm incisally. The model teeth were restored using the following materials of disparate elastic moduli: (1) high modulus, hybrid composite (Herculite XRV); and (2) lower modulus compomer (Dyract). Three replications of each type of restored tooth were fabricated. Simulated masticatory forces were applied on the cusp tip and the cingulum of each tooth model. The resulting stress patterns were observed and recorded photographically in the field of a circular polariscope.
Results: Prior to load application, similar low-level, polymerization-induced shrinkage stresses were localized at the preparation margins of all models. Under both incisal and cingular loading, the higher modulus hybrid composite tended to concentrate stress along the gingival and proximal margins more than did the lower modulus compomer. This effect was more pronounced with cingular than with incisal loading. For both preparations and restoratives, higher stresses were produced by the cingulum loading. No significant differences were observed within each group of replicated restored models.
Conclusion: These results suggest that, regardless of preparation height, lower modulus compomer restoration of facial lesions in primary maxillary canines may reduce stress production by occlusal forces.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!