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
This study evaluated the Reciproc R25 and Pro-R 25 instruments in unused condition, after one and a second use in endodontic retreatment employing a noncontact 3D light interferometer profiler, scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and cyclic fatigue tests. Twenty single-root teeth were instrumented with Reciproc R25 and filled with gutta-percha and sealer. A 3D profiler with a 20x objective using the Mx™ software was used to evaluate the cutting blade surfaces of Reciproc R25 and Pro-R 25 (n=5 per group) in unused condition, after the first and second uses in retreatment procedures. After retreatment, SEM was used to evaluate the topographic features of the used instruments. Cyclic fatigue tests were performed to compare new to used instruments. One-way ANOVA followed by Tukey test was used to compare the tested instruments before and after the first and second uses. Student t-test was used to compare the different instruments and for cyclic fatigue evaluation. No significant differences were observed in the cutting blade surfaces of Reciproc and Pro-R before and after one and two uses (p>0.05). Reciproc without use showed higher Sa and Sq when compared to Pro-R without use (p<0.05). No differences were observed between Reciproc and Pro-R after one and two uses (p>0.05). New and unused Reciproc showed longer time to fracture than Pro-R instruments (p<0.05), and only Pro-R showed differences between new and used instruments (p<0.05). Retreatment procedures with Reciproc and Pro-R did not change the surface topography of instruments. Reciproc had greater resistance to cyclic fatigue compared with Pro-R.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9645204 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0103-6440202204876 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!