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: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
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 investigated variation in working length during multiple-visit endodontic treatment. Patients (N = 106) with pulpitis or pulp necrosis, with or without apical periodontitis, were included. During the first appointment, glide path was performed with ProGlider and shaping with ProTaper Next. Working length was detected four times. Working length was then re-recorded prior to filling during the second appointment and a 0.5 mm threshold was selected as the minimum clinically meaningful variation. A logistic regression model was used to evaluate the impact of tooth anatomy, preoperative pulp status, apical periodontitis and lesions of endodontic origin on working length variation. Working length varied between first and second appointments in 34% of patients. The presence of apical periodontitis was the only variable significantly associated with variation in working length (p = 0.011). These data suggest that working length should be re-checked prior to root canal filling to prevent procedural errors.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/aej.12703 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!