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
98%
921
2 minutes
20
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/10.1590/0103-6440201300099 | DOI Listing |