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: This comparative study aimed to compare the influence of two levels of deep margin elevation (2 and 3 mm) with either bulk-fill flowable composite or short fiber-reinforced flowable composite on the fracture resistance of maxillary first premolars restored with ceramic onlays.
Material And Methods: Fifty sound-extracted maxillary first premolar teeth were selected to prepare mesio-occluso-distal cavities with standardized dimensions. The cervical margins were extended 2 mm below the cemento-enamel junction on both mesial and distal sides. These teeth were randomly divided into five groups: Group I: no box elevation (control group). Group II: 2 mm marginal elevation with bulk-fill flowable composite. Group III: 2 mm marginal elevation with short fiber-reinforced flowable composite. Group IV: 3 mm marginal elevation with bulk-fill flowable composite. Group V: 3 mm marginal elevation with short fiber-reinforced flowable composite. After cementation, all teeth were subjected to a fracture resistance test using the universal testing machine, and the mode of failure was analyzed using a digital microscope at 20x magnification.
Results: The result showed a non-significant difference in the fracture resistance between 2 and 3 mm marginal elevation (>0.05) with respect to each restorative material used for deep margin elevation. However, the fracture resistance of teeth elevated with short fiber-reinforced flowable composite was significantly higher than those elevated with bulk-fill flowable composite at both levels 2 and 3 mm, =0.041 and 0.038 respectively.
Conclusions: The fracture resistance of premolars restored with a ceramic onlay was not influenced by the levels of deep margin elevation (2 or 3 mm). However, marginal elevation with short fiber-reinforced flowable composites provided higher fracture resistance than those elevated with bulk-fill flowable composites, and those without marginal elevation. Fracture Resistance, Short fiber reinforced flowable composite, Bulk-fill flowable composite, Ceramic onlay, Cervical margin elevation.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10306389 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.4317/jced.60384 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!