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
Objective: The aim: To assess the actual prevalence of rubber dam usage among general dentists.
Patients And Methods: Materials and methods: Surveyed participants were offered a questionnaire containing 14 questions about gender, country of origin, clinical experience, time and place of acquisition of skills of rubber dam, as well as the frequency of its usage.
Results: Results: 30.69% of dentists always use rubber dams for direct restorations; 74.26% always use rubber dams during root canals treatment; 36.3% always use rubber dam for bonding indirect restorations.
Conclusion: Conclusions: The prevalence of rubber usage among general dentists shows positive growth dynamics, but the frequency is still considered insufficient.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.36740/WLek202209213 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!