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
The space between the resin and the cavity walls has always become interesting to search. The aim of this study was to evaluate any differences on leakage values of Class 5 type resin restorations prepared on surrounding surfaces of the tooth crown. Ninety human teeth were prepared as Class 5 cavities on buccal, lingual, mesial and distal surfaces and were randomly divided into groups for bevelling, groove preparation and as control. The subgroups were arranged as fluoride gel and/or sealant applications. Fluoride gel was applied following the cavity preparations. Sealant was applied over composite resin restorations. Treated teeth were thermocycled and immersed into dye solution for 96 hours. The restorations were evaluated in a stereo-microscope following the sectioning. Bevelling of the cavosurfaces and/or preparation of a groove addition to cavity procedures did not make any difference on the microleakage scores of the restorations done on either surfaces statistically.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!