Fractured Full Movie !!TOP!! Download

Fracture of anterior teeth by trauma is a common problem in children and teenagers. Complex metal-ceramic crowns with considerable loss of remaining sound structure are no longer necessary due to adhesive techniques, such as composite restorations and re-attachment techniques. This study compared the fracture strength of sound and restored anterior teeth using a resin composite and four re-attachment techniques. A "one bottle" adhesive system (One-Step, BISCO) and a dual cure resin cement (Duo-Link, BISCO) were applied. Thirty-five sound permanent lower central incisors were fractured by an axial load applied to the buccal area and randomly divided into five groups. The teeth were restored as follows: 1) bonded only = just bonding the fragment; 2) chamfer-group = after bonding, a chamfer was prepared on the enamel at the bonding line and filled with composite; 3) overcontour group = after bonding, a thin composite overcontour was applied on the buccal surface around the fracture line; 4) internal dentinal groove = before bonding, an internal groove was made and filled with a resin composite; 5) resin composite group = after a bevel preparation on the enamel edge, the adhesive system was applied and the fractured part of the teeth rebuilt by resin composite. Restored teeth were subjected to the same loading in the same buccal area. Fracture strength after restorative procedure was expressed as a percentage of the original fracture strength and the results analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis statistical analysis. The mean percentages of fracture strength were: Group 1: 37.09%, Group 2: 60.62%, Group 3: 97.2%, Group 4: 90.54% and Group 5: 95.8%. It was concluded that the re-attachment techniques used in Groups 3 and 4, as well as the composite restored group (Group 5), were statistically similar and reached the highest fracture resistance, similar to the fracture resistance of sound teeth.

Methodology: Within an 18-month period all referred endodontic cases involving fractured instruments within root canals were analysed. The protocol for removal of fractured instruments was: create straight-line access to the coronal portion of the fractured instrument, attempt to create a ditched groove around the coronal aspect of the instrument using ultrasonic files and/or to bypass it with K-Files. Subsequently, the fractured instrument was vibrated ultrasonically and flushed out of the root canal or an attempt was made to remove the instrument with the Tube-and-Hedstrm file-Method or similar techniques. The location of the fractured instrument and the time required for removal were recorded. Successful removal was defined as complete removal from the root canal without creating a clinically detectable perforation.

Fractured Full Movie Download

DOWNLOAD 🔥 https://urloso.com/2y3KJ3 🔥

Results: In total, 97 consecutive cases of instrument fracture were included in the time period. In all, 84 instruments (87%) were removed successfully. There was a significant correlation between the time needed to remove fractured instruments and a decrease in success rate. Curved canals had significantly more fractured instruments than straight canals (P < 0.05). Rotary instruments fractured significantly more often in curved canals (P < 0.05) compared with other instruments. Half of all instrument fractures occurred in mesial roots of lower molars and most often when using rotating instruments. There was no statistically significant difference in the success rate with respect to the location of the fractured instrument (tooth/root type), the type of fractured instrument or the different methods of instrument removal.

Conclusions: Curved canals are a higher risk for instrument fracture than straight canals. In curved canals rotary instruments (including lentulo spirals) fractured more often than other instruments. In all, 87% of the fractured instruments were removed successfully. A decrease in success rate was evident with increasing treatment time. The use of an operating microscope was a prerequisite for the techniques used to remove the fractured instruments.

Groundwater flow and the fate and transport of contaminants in fractured rock are influenced by the characteristics of the rock and thus differ from unconsolidated deposits (e.g., silt, sand, or gravel). Due to the differences, approaches to characterizing and remediating unconsolidated deposits may prove unsuccessful in a fractured rock environment. Contaminants can be transported great distances and at relatively high velocities along discrete channels in rock, so it is necessary to characterize both the rock matrix and properties of fractures that control or affect contaminant transport and remediation (NAS, 2020; ITRC, 2017).

Rock formations can have both primary porosity (also called "matrix porosity") and secondary porosity. Primary porosity, the air-filled voids present when a rock forms (e.g., pore spaces between sand grains in a poorly cemented sandstone), is a function of the rock's texture. Secondary porosity develops after the rock has formed, either by fracturing (e.g., joints, faults, and bedding planes) or dissolution, such as the solution channels and cavities found in karst limestone. A poorly cemented sandstone can have a relatively high primary porosity that allows fluids to move through it. However, flow in fractured rock that has multiple fractures or fracture networks is affected by its secondary porosity which means fluid movement can be significant in rock formations with very low primary porosity, such as granite, if the rock has a network of interconnected fractures (ITRC, 2017).

Compared to unconsolidated deposits, significantly more uncertainty exists in fractured rock as to the direction and rate of contaminant migration, as well as the processes and factors that control chemical and microbial transformations (USGS, 2016). Depending upon the orientation and type of fractures, finding the contaminated zones and preferential pathways can be very challenging. Discrete fractures, both contaminated and uncontaminated, can be present in close proximity to each other resulting in potential risks of opening a conduit between fractures and fracture zones during borehole drilling.

The fate and transport of contaminants through fractured rock is a complicated process depending on the properties of the contaminants, the rock type, and the hydrology of the fractures. Mechanisms affecting fate and transport include (ITRC, 2017):

Despite the complexity of fractured rock flow, recent advances have improved characterization and remediation at fractured rock sites. This CLU-IN Fractured Rock focus area identifies resources that can help environmental practitioners with developing strategies for the characterization and remediation of fractured rock. For example, the 2017 guidance, Characterization and Remediation in Fractured Rock, by the Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council (ITRC) addresses "advances in skills, tools, and lessons-learned in understanding contaminant flow and transport in fractured rock environments." It covers geology, hydrogeology, the fate and transport of chemicals in a fractured rock environment, site characterization, remediation design, monitoring, and modeling in fractured rock environments (ITRC, 2017). Another resource is the 2020 Characterization, Modeling, Monitoring, and Remediation of Fractured Rock by the National Academy of Science (NAS, 2020) which examines "new developments, knowledge, and approaches to engineering at fractured rock sites" and builds upon the earlier 1996 National Research Council (NRC) report entitled Rock Fractures and Fluid Flow: Contemporary Understanding and Applications (NRC, 1996).

The Project Profiles page allows users to browse and search information (last updated 2010) on the nature and extent of the contamination at fractured bedrock sites and the actions taken to characterize and remediate the contamination. The focus area is periodically updated with new research papers and reports on demonstration and full-scale cleanups. If you know of a useful publicly available resource not currently listed, please suggest it for inclusion on the Suggest Resource page.

Knowledge of bedrock types and their typical properties is fundamental to understanding fractured rock aquifers. Bedrock types (igneous, sedimentary, and metamorphic) and the individual lithologies that occur within these groups directly influence primary porosity, secondary porosity, fracture characteristics (aperture, orientation, fabric, extent), and the physiography of an area or region and thus affect remedy selection (ITRC, 2017). The descriptions that follow summarize the primary and secondary porosity of various rock types. NAS (2005) designates fractured media as either a Type IV (Fractured Media with Low Matrix Porosity) or Type V (Fractured Media with High Matrix Porosity) setting; this designation is included in each description. For more information on bedrock types, see Appendix B of Characterization and Remediation of Fractured Rocks (ITRC, 2017).

Unaltered pyroclastic6 deposits have porosity and permeability characteristics like those of poorly sorted sediments. If the ejected rock fragments were very hot as they settled, however, the pyroclastic material could become welded and almost impermeable. Silicic lavas, such as rhyolite or dacite, tend to be extruded as thick, dense flows and have low permeability except where they are fractured. Basaltic lavas tend to be fluid and can form extensive but thin flows that have a considerable amount of primary pore space (i.e., vesicles) at the tops and bottoms of the flows. Basalts are the most productive aquifers of all volcanic rock types (USGS, 1999). Extrusive rocks from lava or welded pyroclastic deposits would be classified as Type IV, in NAS's (2005) system. Contaminant transport in Type IV rock settings has only limited matrix diffusion effects, and secondary porosity caused by fracturing is the main transmissive feature (although fractures may or may not be connected). Extensively weathered crystalline rock, such as sometimes found at the top of bedrock, can exhibit more of a porous medium behavior. 2351a5e196