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
Thermoluminescent dosimeters were used to measure radiation doses at craniofacial sites in a tissue-equivalent phantom during film-based multidirectional tomography with the Tomax Ultrascan (Incubation Industries, Ivyland, Pa.) and during computed tomography with the Elscint Excel 2400 (Elscint Corp., Tel Aviv, Israel). Mean absorbed doses for presurgical mandibular and maxillary canine and molar implant assessments were converted to equivalent doses, which were then multiplied by published weighting factors and summed to give effective doses. The computed tomography device consistently delivered higher doses than the Tomax Ultrascan to all anatomic locations; the differences were most pronounced when only one or two implant sites were evaluated. The reasons for the dose disparities are considered both anatomically and procedurally. A survey of examination cost revealed film-based multidirectional tomography to be less expensive than computed tomography.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s1079-2104(97)90089-5 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!