The slippery slope – Critical perspectives on in vitro research methodologies

Kelly, J. Robert; Benetti, Paula; Rungruanganunt, Patchanee; Bona, Álvaro Della

doi:10.1016/j.dental.2011.09.001

Cited by 137 publications

(104 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

100

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…22 Additionally, further progress towards the improvement of in vitro testing is expected to simulate clinical conditions more closely. 23 The inclusion of materials in the tooth structure was proposed in a radio-opacity study. 24 In effect, our results showed differences in the relative radio-opacity of the sealers between methods, with increased radio-opacity of endodontic sealers when they were radiographed inside the simulator.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A newin vitromethod to evaluate radio-opacity of endodontic sealers

Malka¹,

Hochscheidt²,

Larentis³

et al. 2015

Dentomaxillofacial Radiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To evaluate a new method for assessing the radio-opacity of endodontic sealers and to compare radio-opacity values with a well-established standard method. Methods: The sealers evaluated in this study were AH Plus ® (Dentsply DeTrey GmbH, Konstanz, Germany), Endo CPM Sealer (EGEO SRL, Buenos Aires, Argentina) and MTA Fillapex ® (Angelus Dental Products Industry S/A, Londrina, Parana, Brazil). Two methods were used to evaluate radio-opacity: (D) standard discs and (S) a tissue simulator. For (D), ten standard discs were prepared for each sealer and were radiographed using Digora ® phosphor storage plates (Soredex; Orion Corporation, Helsinki, Finland), alongside an aluminium stepwedge. For (S), polyethylene tubes filled with sealer (n 5 10 for each) were radiographed inside the simulator as described. The digital images were analysed using Adobe Photoshop ® software v. 10.0 (Adobe Systems, San Jose, CA). To compare the radio-opacity among the sealers, the data were analysed by ANOVA and Tukey's test, and to compare methods, they were analysed by the Mann-Whitney U test. To compare the data obtained from dentin and sealers in method (S), Student's paired t-test was used (50.05). Results: In both methods, the sealers showed significant differences, according to the following decreasing order: AH Plus, MTA Fillapex and Endo CPM. In (D), MTA Fillapex and Endo CPM showed less radio-opacity than aluminium. For all of the materials, the radio-opacity was higher in (S) than in (D). Compared with dentin, all of the materials were more radio-opaque. Conclusions: The comparison of the two assessment methods for sealer radio-opacity testing validated the use of a tissue simulator block. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology (2015Radiology ( ) 44, 20140422. doi: 10.1259 Cite this article as: Malka VB, Hochscheidt GL, Larentis NL, Grecca FS, Fontanella VRC, Kopper PMP. A new in vitro method to evaluate radio-opacity of endodontic sealers. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2015; 44: 20140422.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A newin vitromethod to evaluate radio-opacity of endodontic sealers

Malka¹,

Hochscheidt²,

Larentis³

et al. 2015

Dentomaxillofacial Radiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Inherently, this type of testing cannot have direct clinical implications. 18 However, the results of this test provide an accurate comparison of the 4 materials because of the standardization of the specimens and testing and the existence of a controlled laboratory environment. Determining the material mechanical properties is an essential first step to understanding the behavior of the materials used in restorative dentistry.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Edge chipping resistance and flexural strength of polymer infiltrated ceramic network and resin nanoceramic restorative materials

Argyrou

Thompson

Berzins

2016

The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…However, over the past few decades, the validity of some in vitro dental materials studies has been questioned due to the variability in the methodological parameters, the lack of representativeness of the clinical mechanism of failure and the poor correlation with clinical behavior 2,3 . Despite this, and considering that many issues related to restorative dental materials are difficult to evaluate in clinical studies because of high costs and ethical considerations 4 , the question that arises is: How can one simulate in laboratory the clinical conditions that dental materials are submitted?…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…According to Kelly et al 2 (2012), in vitro studies can be categorized into two main groups: tests involving the measurement of physical properties; and tests aiming to simulate the clinical behavior 2 . There are standardized tests of mechanical and chemical properties in the first group, to include strength, fracture toughness, hardness, and thermal expansion, all of which use simplified specimens.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There are standardized tests of mechanical and chemical properties in the first group, to include strength, fracture toughness, hardness, and thermal expansion, all of which use simplified specimens. The second group uses tests that try to simulate the oral environment, to include parameters such as loading, temperature changes and humidity, usually employing specimens that are more complex and clinically more realis-tic 2 . Therefore, the type of information that is desired is crucial for selecting the most suitable in vitro methodology and test parameters.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation