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
The purpose of the study was to compare the canal centring ability of K3, Liberator and EZ Fill Safesiders by using spiral computed tomography (SCT). Forty curved mandibular premolars were selected. Before and after instrumentation teeth were scanned by spiral computed tomography and nine cross-sectional views of each tooth were obtained at 1.5 mm intervals from the apex. Canal centring ratio was calculated. Mean values were compared between different study groups by using one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey - HSD procedure. At 1st, 2nd and 3rd levels, there was no statistical difference between groups. From 4th to 9th levels Safesider showed higher centring ratio, followed by Liberator and K3. Safesider showed better canal centring ability followed by Liberator and K3.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-4477.2009.00210.x | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!