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
Aim: Mouthguard thickness influences the preventive effects against dental and oral injury. The aim of this study was to examine the difference in pressure-formed mouthguard thickness according to the laminate procedure used.
Materials And Methods: The materials used were mouthguard sheets of 2.0-mm and 3.0-mm ethylene vinyl acetate, and pressure formed using a pressure former. Two forming conditions for laminated mouthguards were examined: the condition 23P used the 2.0-mm sheet as the first layer and 3.0-mm sheet as the second layer. The condition 32P used the 3.0-mm sheet as the first layer and 2.0-mm sheet as the second layer. The first layer was trimmed to cover only the anterior region; then, the second layer was formed over the first layer. Mouthguard thickness was measured at the labial surface of the central incisor, buccal surface of the first molar, and occlusal surface of the first molar. Statistical analysis was performed by two-way analysis of variance and Bonferroni method to analyze the differences in thickness by measurement region of mouthguards and forming conditions.
Results: Mouthguard thickness differed in different regions of the central incisors and the first molars (P < .01). The thickness at the labial surface of the central incisor became statistically significantly larger on the 32P condition than that on the 23P condition (P < .01). The thickness at the buccal surface and the occlusal surface of the first molar became statistically significantly larger on the 23P condition than that on the 32P condition (P < .01).
Conclusions: The thicknesses of the labial surface of the central incisor became larger when the sheet thickness of the first layer was larger.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/edt.12516 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!