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
This study aimed to evaluate the correspondence of intraoral digitization (ID) with extraoral digitization (ED) after impression taking. One-stage putty-and wash impressions and ID were carried out in a randomized order for 10 subjects. The impressions were used to make casts, which were then subjected to ED. ID datasets were aligned to create computer-aided design reference models. Deviations between ID and ED were calculated. The mean positive and negative deviations were 37.7 and -48.4 µm, respectively, for one quadrant. The results showed that the ID system is well suited for the acquisition of single-tooth restorations and is of limited suitability for the acquisition of small multiple unit restorations.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.11607/ijp.3455 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!