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

Efficacy of Electronic Foramen Locators in Controlling Root Canal Working Length during Rotary Instrumentation. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

The present study evaluated the efficacy of electronic foramen locators (EFLs) to control root canal working length during rotary instrumentation and to assess possible reliability variations of different working lengths. Forty-eight human mandibular bicuspids were randomly divided in 2 groups according to the used device, Root ZX II (RZX) and Propex II (PRO). They were further subdivided in 2 subgroups according to the root canal preparation level (0.0 and -1.0). Preparation was performed with the Protaper rotary system using a crown-down technique. RZX was employed on its automatic auto-reverse mode (AAR) and PRO was used with the MPAS-10R contra-angle to monitor the preparation. The last used file (F3) was fixed, and the apical portion of the teeth was worn buccolingually, allowing to measure the extent between the file tip and the apical foramen (AF). The precision values of 0.0 mm and -1.0 mm were 100% and 0.0% for RZX, and 100% and 66.7% for PRO, respectively, with a range of ±0.5 mm. Statistical analysis showed no differences between the groups at 0.0 mm. However, at -1.0 mm, RZX showed the poorest results (0.96±0.11 mm), followed by PRO (0.43±0.23 mm). The difference between RZX and PRO was statistically significant. The EFLs were precise in maintaining the working length during rotary preparation when reaching the AF, but when their penetration was limited, both devices showed decreased precision; the RZX AAR failed in all instances.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0103-6440201300099DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

root canal
12
working length
12
length rotary
12
efficacy electronic
8
electronic foramen
8
foramen locators
8
canal working
8
rotary instrumentation
8
rzx
6
pro
5

Similar Publications