Halogen lamp and led activation of resin-modified glass ionomer restorative material. In vitro microhardness after long term storage

AIM: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the activation of resin-modified glass ionomer restorative material (RMGI, Vitremer-3M-ESPE, A3) by halogen lamp (QTH) or light-emitting diode (LED) by Knoop microhardness (KHN) in two storage conditions: 24hrs and 6 months and in two depths (0 and 2 mm). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The specimens were randomly divided into 3 experimental groups (n=10) according to activation form and evaluated in depth after 24h and after 6 months of storage. Activation was performed with QTH for 40s (700 mW/cm2) and for 40 or 20 s with LED (1,200 mW/scm2). After 24 hrs and 6 months of storage at 37°C in relative humidity in lightproof container, the Knoop microhardness test was performed. Statistics Data were analysed by three-way ANOVA and Tukey post-tests (p<0.05). RESULTS: All evaluated factors showed significant differences (p<0.05). After 24 hrs there were no differences within the experimental groups. KHN at 0 mm was significantly higher than 2 mm. After 6 months, there was an increase of microhardness values for all groups, being the ones activated by LED higher than the ones activated by QTH. CONCLUSION: Light-activation with LED positively influenced the KHN for RMGI evaluated after 6 months.

Taking personalized medicine seriously: Biomarker approaches in phase IIb/III studies in major depression and schizophrenia

The success rate in the development of psychopharmacological compounds is insufficient. Two main reasons for failure have been frequently identified: 1) treating the wrong patients and 2) using the wrong dose. This is potentially based on the known heterogeneity among patients, both on a syndromal and a biological level. A focus on personalized medicine through better characterization with biomarkers has been successful in other therapeutic areas. Nevertheless, obstacles toward this goal that exist are 1) the perception of a lack of validation, 2) the perception of an expensive and complicated enterprise, and 3) the perception of regulatory hurdles. The authors tackle these concerns and focus on the utilization of biomarkers as predictive markers for treatment outcome. The authors primarily cover examples from the areas of major depression and schizophrenia. Methodologies covered include salivary and plasma collection of neuroendocrine, metabolic, and inflammatory markers, which identified subgroups of patients in the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety. A battery of vegetative markers, including sleep-electroencephalography parameters, heart rate variability, and bedside functional tests, can be utilized to characterize the activity of a functional system that is related to treatment refractoriness in depression (e.g., the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system). Actigraphy and skin conductance can be utilized to classify patients with schizophrenia and provide objective readouts for vegetative activation as a functional marker of target engagement. Genetic markers, related to folate metabolism, or folate itself, has prognostic value for the treatment response in patients with schizophrenia. Already, several biomarkers are routinely collected in standard clinical trials (e.g., blood pressure and plasma electrolytes), and appear to be differentiating factors for treatment outcome. Given the availability of a wide variety of markers, the further development and integration of such markers into clinical research is both required and feasible in order to meet the benefit of personalized medicine. This article is based on proceedings from the "Taking Personalized Medicine Seriously-Biomarker Approaches in Phase IIb/III Studies in Major Depression and Schizophrenia" session, which was held during the 10th Annual Scientific Meeting of the International Society for Clinical Trials Meeting (ISCTM) in Washington, DC, February 18 to 20, 2014.