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 present study aimed to evaluate in situ the effect of CO2 laser irradiation to control the progression of enamel erosive lesions. Fifty-six slabs of bovine incisors enamel (5 × 3 × 2.5 mm(3) ) were divided in four distinct areas: (1) sound (reference area), (2) initial erosion, (3) treatment (irradiated or nonirradiated with CO2 laser), (4) final erosion (after in situ phase). The initial erosive challenge was performed with 1% citric acid (pH = 2.3), for 5 min, 2×/day, for 2 days. The slabs were divided in two groups according to surface treatment: irradiated with CO2 laser (λ = 10.6 µm; 0.5 W) and nonirradiate. After a 2-day lead-in period, 14 volunteers wore an intraoral palatal appliance containing two slabs (irradiated and nonirradiated), in two intraoral phases of 5 days each. Following a cross-over design during the first intraoral phase, half of the volunteers immersed the appliance in 100 mL of citric acid for 5 min, 3×/day, while other half of the volunteers used deionized water (control). The volunteers were crossed over in the second phase. Enamel wear was determined by an optical 3D profilometer. Three-way ANOVA for repeated measures revealed that there was no significant interaction between erosive challenge and CO2 laser irradiation (P = 0.419). Erosive challenge significantly increased enamel wear (P = 0.001), regardless whether or not CO2 laser irradiation was performed. There was no difference in enamel wear between specimens CO2 -laser irradiated and non-irradiated (P = 0.513). Under intraoral conditions, CO2 laser irradiation did not control the progression of erosive lesions in enamel caused by citric acid.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jemt.22377 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!