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
Background: Enamel microabrasion is an esthetic treatment for removing superficial stains or defects of enamel.
Aim: This study evaluated the roughness after enamel microabrasion using experimental microabrasive systems.
Materials And Methods: One hundred and ten samples (5 × 5 mm) were obtained from bovine incisors and divided into 11 groups (n = 10) in accordance with the treatment: Microabrasion using 6.6% hydrochloric acid (HCl) or 35% phosphoric acid (H3PO4) associated with aluminum oxide (AlO3) or pumice (Pum) with active application (using rubber cup coupled with a micro-motor of low rotation) or passive application (just placing the mixture on the enamel surface); just the use of acids in a passive application (negative control), and a group without treatment (positive control). Roughness analysis was performed before and after treatments. The statistical analysis used analysis of variance (PROC MIXED), Tukey-Kramer and Dunnet tests (P < 0.05). Representative specimens were evaluated using scanning electron microscopy (SEM).
Results: There was no significant difference between the acids used (P = 0.0510) and the applications (P = 0.8989). All of the treated groups were statistically different from the positive control. When using passive application, the use of HCl + AlO3 resulted in higher roughness when compared with HCl + Pum. Additionally, this treatment was statistically different from the passive application of H3PO4 (negative control) (P < 0.05). However, SEM analysis showed that the treatment with AlO3 resulted in an enamel surface with a more polished aspect when compared with Pum.
Conclusion: AlO3 may be a suitable particle for use in microabrasive systems.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4456737 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0976-237X.156038 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!