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: In vitro evaluation of the morphology of the enamel surface before bonding metal tubes and after debonding using spectral domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) and light microscopy.
Methods: In all, 40 extracted caries-free human molars without defects were selected and cleaned. The tooth surfaces were imaged by light microscopy and SD-OCT prior to the placement of metal tubes (Titanium Orthos; Ormco, Brea, CA, USA). The metal tubes were bonded to the teeth using four adhesive systems: group 1) BrackFix Primer SE with BrackFix adhesive, group 2) BrackFix Primer with BrackFix adhesive (VOCO, Cuxhaven, Germany), group 3) Transbond Plus SE Primer with Transbond XT adhesive, group 4) Transbond XT Primer with Transbond XT adhesive (reference, 3M Deutschland, Neuss, Germany). After tube removal, the bonded areas were imaged by light microscopy and/or OCT and evaluated according to the following four criteria: (1) depth of cohesive enamel defect, (2) enamel cracks, (3) adhesive residue after tube removal, and (4) adhesive residues after polishing.
Results: None of the groups had enamel defects or enamel cracks. Group 1 showed significantly less adhesive residue after tube removal than the other groups (p ≤ 0.014). There were no significant differences between the groups for adhesive residues after polishing (p ≥ 0.628). Adhesive residues, if present, were only detectable by OCT and covered less than 1% of the enamel surfaces evaluated.
Conclusion: Tube removal did not cause clinically relevant enamel damage such as chipping or cracking.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00056-024-00561-y | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!