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 aim of this study was to compare the isolation systems OptraDam® Plus and OptiDam™ with the conventional rubber dam in terms of objective and subjective parameters. The isolation systems were applied during the dental treatment of the patients. The time of preparation, placement, presence and removal were measured and the quality of isolation was evaluated. The median time of rubber dam placement was 76 s (Q1=62 s; Q3=111.25 s). The application time of OptraDam® Plus was significantly longer compared to the other systems (P ® plus. The results presented in this study could guide clinicians for choosing the most appropriate isolation system.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.14712/18059694.2015.86 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!