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
Background: The hand and rotary instruments are used for cleaning and shaping of root canals during biomechanical preparation in primary teeth.
Aim: To determine clinical differences of hand versus rotary root canal instrumentation in primary teeth.
Design: Comprehensive searches were made in four electronic databases [MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, Google Scholar, and The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials] till March 2020, and prospective studies that met the inclusion criteria were included. The primary outcome was instrumentation time, whereas the secondary outcomes were quality of obturation, obturation time, and clinical and radiographic success. From 604 screened studies, eleven studies qualified for meta-analysis. The random-effect model and generic inverse variance approach were used for meta-analysis.
Results: There was significant decrease in instrumentation time [MD-5.00 minutes (95% CI: 3.05-6.94), P < .00001, moderate evidence quality] and obturation time [MD-0.43 minutes (95% CI: 0.15-0.71), P = .003, low evidence quality] with rotary instrumentation. Optimal quality of obturation was achieved in significantly more number of teeth [risk ratio (RR) = 0.71(95% CI: 0.53-0.95),P = .02, moderate to high evidence quality] with rotary instrumentation. Similar clinical and radiographic success was observed in hand and rotary instrumentation techniques.
Conclusion: Significant reduction in instrumentation time of five minutes was observed using rotary instrumentation with moderate quality evidence.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ipd.12720 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!