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
The aim of this study was to evaluate the penetration of endodontic sealer into the dentin tubules, the integrity of the sealer layer perimeter, and the sealer area at the apical third after different filling techniques by confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM). Forty-five mandibular premolars were mechanically prepared with ProTaper files, until F5 file. Thereafter, they were filled with an epoxy-resin sealer (AH Plus) mixed with Rhodamine B dye (0.1% proportion) and allocated in three groups: Group 1, single master cone; Group 2, cold lateral compaction; and Group 3, Thermafil. For confocal laser scanning microscopy analysis, the specimens were transversely sectioned at 4 mm from the apex. The images at ×10 and ×40 were analyzed by Imagetool 3.0 software. Significant differences were not found among the three experimental groups according the dentin-impregnate area by the sealer (P = 0.68) and between the sealer and root canal perimeter (P = 0.18). However, root canal filling techniques were significantly different when apical sealer areas were compared (P = 0.001). Thermafil group showed smaller sealer areas (8.09%) while cold lateral compaction and gutta-percha master cone showed similar areas (17.37 and 21.18%, respectively). The dentin-impregnated area was not dependent on the root canal filling technique. Single master cone, cold lateral condensation and Thermafil techniques presented integrity of the sealer perimeter close to 100% and Thermafil resulted in a significantly thinner sealer layer.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jemt.22061 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!