Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&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
The aim was to compare the shaping ability of different rotary nickel-titanium instruments in simulated S-shaped canals. One hundred S-shaped canals in resin blocks were prepared to an apical size 25 using F6 SkyTaper (Komet), Silk Files .04, Silk Files .06, Prototypes .04, and Prototypes .06 (all Mani) (20 canals/group). Material removal was measured at 20 measuring points, beginning 1 mm from the endpoint of preparation. Incidence of canal aberrations, preparation time, and instrument failures were also recorded. Statistical analyses were performed using ANOVA, Student-Newman-Keuls and Chi-square test. Pooled data of all measuring points revealed that canals instrumented with Prototypes .04 were significantly better centered than those prepared with all other instruments, while Prototypes .06 and both Silk Files performed significantly better than F6 SkyTaper (p < 0.05). The preparation time differed significantly between all groups and Prototypes .04 allowed the fastest preparation (p < 0.05). There was no statistically significant association between type of instrument and incidence of aberrations (p > 0.05). The cross-sectional design had a marked impact on the shaping ability of the instruments, and less tapered instruments maintained the original canal curvature better than instruments having greater tapers.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10266-019-00450-6 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!