A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

Apical extrusion of intracanal debris using two engine driven and step-back instrumentation techniques: an in-vitro study. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to compare in-vitro the amount of debris extruded apically from extracted teeth, using K3, Protaper rotary instruments and manual step-back technique.

Methods: Forty five human single-rooted mandibular premolar teeth were randomly divided into 3 groups. The teeth in 3 groups were instrumented until reaching the working length with K3, Protaper rotary instruments and K-type stainless steel instruments with manual step-back technique, respectively. Debris extruded from the apical foramen was collected into centrifuge tubes and the amount was determined. The data obtained were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance and Mann-Whitney U tests, with P=.05 as the level for statistical significance.

Results: Statistically significant difference was observed between K3, Protaper and step-back groups in terms of debris extrusion (P<.05). Step-back group had the highest mean debris weight, which was significantly different from the K3 and Protaper groups (P<.05). The lowest mean debris weight was related to K3 group, which was significantly different from the Protaper group (P<.05).

Conclusions: Based on the results, all instrumentation techniques produced debris extrusion. The engine-driven Ni-Ti systems extruded significantly less apical debris than step-back technique. However, Protaper rotary instruments extruded significantly more debris than K3 rotary instruments.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2634776PMC

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

debris extruded
8
protaper rotary
8
rotary instruments
8
instruments manual
8
manual step-back
8
apical extrusion
4
extrusion intracanal
4
debris
4
intracanal debris
4
debris engine
4

Similar Publications