Bond strength tests of dental adhesive systems and their correlation with clinical results : a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the variability of bond strength test results of adhesive systems (AS) and to correlate the results with clinical parameters of clinical studies investigating cervical restorations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Regarding the clinical studies, the internal database which had previously been used for a meta-analysis on cervical restorations was updated with clinical studies published between 2008 and 2012 by searching the PubMed and SCOPUS databases. PubMed and the International Association for Dental Research abstracts online were searched for laboratory studies on microtensile, macrotensile and macroshear bond strength tests. The inclusion criteria were (1) dentin, (2) testing of at least four adhesive systems, (3) same diameter of composite and (4) 24h of water storage prior to testing. The clinical outcome variables were retention loss, marginal discoloration, detectable margins, and a clinical index comprising the three parameters by weighing them. Linear mixed models which included a random study effect were calculated for both, the laboratory and the clinical studies. The variability was assessed by calculating a ratio of variances, dividing the variance among the estimated bonding effects obtained in the linear mixed models by the sum of all variance components estimated in these models. RESULTS: Thirty-two laboratory studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria comprising 183 experiments. Of those, 86 used the microtensile test evaluating 22 adhesive systems (AS). Twenty-seven used the macrotensile test with 17 AS, and 70 used the macroshear test with 24 AS. For 28 AS the results from clinical studies were available. Microtensile and macrotensile (Spearman rho=0.66, p=0.007) were moderately correlated and also microtensile and macroshear (Spearman rho=0.51, p=0.03) but not macroshear and macrotensile (Spearman rho=0.34, p=0.22). The effect of the adhesive system was significant for microtensile and macroshear (p<0.001) but not for macrotensile. The effect of the adhesive system could explain 36% of the variability of the microtensile test, 27% of the macrotensile and 33% of the macroshear test. For the clinical trials, about 49% of the variability of retained restorations could be explained by the adhesive system. With respect to the correlation between bond strength tests and clinical parameters, only a moderate correlation between micro- and macrotensile test results and marginal discoloration was demonstrated. However, no correlation between these tests and a retention loss or marginal integrity was shown. The correlation improved when more studies were included compared to assessing only one study. SIGNIFICANCE: The high variability of bond strength test results highlights the need to establish individual acceptance levels for a given test institute. The weak correlation of bond-strength test results with clinical parameters leads to the conclusion that one should not rely solely on bond strength tests to predict the clinical performance of an adhesive system but one should conduct other laboratory tests like tests on the marginal adaptation of fillings in extracted teeth and the retention loss of restorations in non-retentive cavities after artificial aging.

Toxicity screenings of nanomaterials: challenges due to interference with assay processes and components of classic in vitro tests.

Given the multiplicity of nanoparticles (NPs), there is a requirement to develop screening strategies to evaluate their toxicity. Within the EU-funded FP7 NanoTEST project, a panel of medically relevant NPs has been used to develop alternative testing strategies of NPs used in medical diagnostics. As conventional toxicity tests cannot necessarily be directly applied to NPs in the same manner as for soluble chemicals and drugs, we determined the extent of interference of NPs with each assay process and components. In this study, we fully characterized the panel of NP suspensions used in this project (poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid)-polyethylene oxide [PLGA-PEO], TiO2, SiO2, and uncoated and oleic-acid coated Fe3O4) and showed that many NP characteristics (composition, size, coatings, and agglomeration) interfere with a range of in vitro cytotoxicity assays (WST-1, MTT, lactate dehydrogenase, neutral red, propidium iodide, (3)H-thymidine incorporation, and cell counting), pro-inflammatory response evaluation (ELISA for GM-CSF, IL-6, and IL-8), and oxidative stress detection (monoBromoBimane, dichlorofluorescein, and NO assays). Interferences were assay specific as well as NP specific. We propose how to integrate and avoid interference with testing systems as a first step of a screening strategy for biomedical NPs.

Measuring individuals' response quality in self-administered psychological tests : an introduction to Gendre's functional method

The functional method is a new test theory using a new scoring method that assumes complexity in test structure, and thus takes into account every correlation between factors and items. The main specificity of the functional method is to model test scores by multiple regression instead of estimating them by using simplistic sums of points. In order to proceed, the functional method requires the creation of hyperspherical measurement space, in which item responses are expressed by their correlation with orthogonal factors. This method has three main qualities. First, measures are expressed in the absolute metric of correlations; therefore, items, scales and persons are expressed in the same measurement space using the same single metric. Second, factors are systematically orthogonal and without errors, which is optimal in order to predict other outcomes. Such predictions can be performed to estimate how one would answer to other tests, or even to model one's response strategy if it was perfectly coherent. Third, the functional method provides measures of individuals' response validity (i.e., control indices). Herein, we propose a standard procedure in order to identify whether test results are interpretable and to exclude invalid results caused by various response biases based on control indices.

Comparison of Griffiths-II and Bayley-II tests for the developmental assessment of high-risk infants.

INTRODUCTION: Two important risk factors for abnormal neurodevelopment are preterm birth and neonatal hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy. The new revisions of Griffiths Mental Development Scale (Griffiths-II, [1996]) and the Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-II, [1993]) are two of the most frequently used developmental diagnostics tests. The Griffiths-II is divided into five subscales and a global development quotient (QD), and the BSID-II is divided into two scales, the Mental scale (MDI) and the Psychomotor scale (PDI). The main objective of this research was to establish the extent to which developmental diagnoses obtained using the new revisions of these two tests are comparable for a given child. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Retrospective study of 18-months-old high-risk children examined with both tests in the follow-up Unit of the Clinic of Neonatology of our tertiary care university Hospital between 2011 and 2012. To determine the concurrent validity of the two tests paired t-tests and Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients were computed. Using the BSID-II as a gold standard, the performance of the Griffiths-II was analyzed with receiver operating curves. RESULTS: 61 patients (80.3% preterm, 14.7% neonatal asphyxia) were examined. For the BSID-II the MDI mean was 96.21 (range 67-133) and the PDI mean was 87.72 (range 49-114). For the Griffiths-II, the QD mean was 96.95 (range 60-124), the locomotors subscale mean was 92.57 (range 49-119). The score of the Griffiths locomotors subscale was significantly higher than the PDI (p<0.001). Between the Griffiths-II QD and the BSID-II MDI no significant difference was found, and the area under the curve was 0.93, showing good validity. All correlations were high and significant with a Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient >0.8. CONCLUSIONS: The meaning of the results for a given child was the same for the two tests. Two scores were interchangeable, the Griffiths-II QD and the BSID-II MDI.