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
Purpose: To evaluate the effect of three two-retainer designs of a resin-bonded fixed dental prosthesis (RBFDP) on fracture resistance.
Materials And Methods: A total of 21 three-unit, all-ceramic RBFPDs were fabricated to replace a missing maxillary lateral incisor. The prostheses were divided into three groups of 7 each: Group L (labial RBFPD); Group ML (modified labial RBFPD, fabricated the same as in Group L with additional preparation that included a shallow proximal groove at the pontic side); and Group P, an all-ceramic palatal RBFPD that acted as control. Preparations were done on the maxillary left central incisor and canine of a typodont model, and 21 epoxy resin models were duplicated for the three groups. The RBFPDs were designed using CAD software and constructed using the heat-pressed technique, after which the prostheses were bonded to their corresponding epoxy resin model according to the manufacturer's instructions. A fracture resistance test was performed on all specimens following aging. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA.
Results: The highest fracture load values were recorded in Group P (547.5 N), followed by Group ML (462.6 N) and then Group L (418.3 N). The difference among the three designs was not statistically significant (F = 2.5, P = 0.1).
Conclusion: Both labial and modified labial RBFDPs could be a viable alternative treatment option for replacement of missing maxillary lateral incisors.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.11607/ijp.6379 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!