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
Purpose: This in-vitro study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and acid resistance on dentin surfaces following the application of a linear-oscillating device (LOD) with a hydroxyapatite-based polishing fluid, Er:YAG laser or sodium fluoride (NaF) used alone or in combinations for desensitising purposes.
Materials And Methods: Freshly extracted impacted third molars were used to obtain 120 specimens, all completely immersed in 1% citric acid for 5 min and divided randomly into 6 groups. Group I, with no treatment, served as the control; group II: Er:YAG laser (30 Hz, 60 mJ/pulse, 10 s); group III: NaF gel; group IV: LOD; groups V and VI: the combinations of NaF+Er:YAG and LOD+Er:YAG, respectively, were applied. Following these treatments, the effectiveness of each was evaluated in half of the specimens in each group (n = 10). The other half of the specimens (n = 10) served for acid-resistance testing. All evaluations were made on SEM photomicrographs.
Results: The post-treatment tubule diameters and numbers were the lowest with LOD+Er:YAG, followed by NaF+Er:YAG, LOD, Er:YAG and NaF. Paired comparisons revealed LOD+Er:YAG to be the best treatment method (p < 0.05). After 3 h of acid immersion, all treatments revealed significant increases (p < 0.05) in both tubule number and diameter study between post-treatment and post-acid immersion values. The exception was LOD+Er:YAG. LOD+Er:YAG showed the highest resistance to acid challenge, presenting the lowest increase in tubular diameters and numbers followed by NaF+Er:YAG, LOD, Er:YAG and NaF.
Conclusion: Combined LOD+Er:YAG treatment revealed the highest effectiveness and acid resistance. Further clinical studies are warranted to confirm these in-vitro results.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.3290/j.ohpd.b3464895 | DOI Listing |
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11640751 | PMC |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!