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 is to evaluate the effectiveness over application time of different formulations of a novel endodontic irrigant (QMix™ 2in1) composed of a polyaminocarboxylic acid chelating agent, a bisbiguanide antimicrobial agent, a surfactant and deionized water to remove the root canal smear layer and expose patent dentinal tubules compared to a standard solution of 17% EDTA. Eighty human tooth roots from extracted, single-rooted teeth were instrumented (size 40.06) using 0.2 mL of sodium hypochlorite (6.15%) between each file size with a 3 mL water rinse after final instrumentation. Eight groups of 10 roots were irrigated with 3 mL of different formulations of QMix: QMix A, QMix B, and QMix C, or 17% EDTA for 60 and 90 s, respectively, then rinsed with 5 mL of sterile water. The roots were irrigated using a standard irrigation syringe and a 30 ga side-vent needle with an apical-coronal motion to within 1 mm of the working length. The coronal, middle and apical thirds of one canal surface of each root was evaluated at 1000× using scanning electron microscopy. The presence of smear layer was scored using a 5-point scale. Data were analyzed with the Kruskal-Wallis rank sums test, the Steel-Dwass, all-pairs comparison test, and the Steel method (with control) test. Irrigant type was highly significant (p < 0.007). Combined 60 and 90 s exposure data indicated QMix A (p = 0.014) and QMix C (p = 0.028) were superior to EDTA. While at the 90 s exposure time, smear layer removal by solutions QMix A (p = 0.043), QMix B (p = 0.018), and QMix C (p = 0.011) was superior to EDTA. All irrigants removed smear layer more effectively at the coronal and middle levels compared to the apical level (p < 0.001). Analysis showed all three QMix formulations were superior to EDTA in smear layer removal and exposure of dentinal tubules in the root canal system in single-rooted teeth.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10266-012-0102-1 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!