A PHP Error was encountered

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

An in vitro comparison of apically extruded debris and instrumentation times with ProTaper Universal, ProTaper Next, Twisted File Adaptive, and HyFlex instruments. | LitMetric

Introduction: The purpose of this study was to compare the in vitro amount of apically extruded debris with new endodontic rotary nickel-titanium instruments.

Methods: Sixty mandibular premolars were instrumented up to size 25 using ProTaper Universal (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland), ProTaper Next (Dentsply Maillefer), Twisted File Adaptive (SybronEndo, Orange, CA), and HyFlex (Coltene-Whaledent, Allstetten, Switzerland) rotary systems. The apically extruded debris was collected and dried in preweighed Eppendorf tubes. The amount of extruded debris was assessed with an electronic balance. The total time required to complete root canal shaping with the different instruments was also recorded. The significance level was set at P = .05.

Results: The instrumentation time with the ProTaper Universal rotary system was significantly longer than with all the other instruments (P < .05). The Twisted File Adaptive and ProTaper Next systems extruded significantly less debris than the ProTaper Universal and HyFlex systems (P < .05).

Conclusions: The ProTaper Next and Twisted File Adaptive instrumentation systems were associated with less debris extrusion compared with the ProTaper Universal and HyFlex systems.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2014.04.004DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

extruded debris
20
protaper universal
20
twisted file
16
file adaptive
16
apically extruded
12
protaper
9
protaper twisted
8
dentsply maillefer
8
universal hyflex
8
hyflex systems
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!