Limits...
How to design in situ studies: an evaluation of experimental protocols.

Sung YH, Kim HY, Son HH, Chang J - Restor Dent Endod (2014)

Bottom Line: Multiple variables were analyzed in relation to the publication types, participant characteristics, specimen and appliance factors, and other conditions.It will be possible to establish standardized in situ protocols according to the research topics.Furthermore, data collaboration from comparable studies would be enhanced by homogeneous study designs.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Conservative Dentistry, Seoul National University School of Dentistry and Dental Research Institute, Seoul, Korea.

ABSTRACT

Objectives: Designing in situ models for caries research is a demanding procedure, as both clinical and laboratory parameters need to be incorporated in a single study. This study aimed to construct an informative guideline for planning in situ models relevant to preexisting caries studies.

Materials and methods: An electronic literature search of the PubMed database was performed. A total 191 of full articles written in English were included and data were extracted from materials and methods. Multiple variables were analyzed in relation to the publication types, participant characteristics, specimen and appliance factors, and other conditions. Frequencies and percentages were displayed to summarize the data and the Pearson's chi-square test was used to assess a statistical significance (p < 0.05).

Results: There were many parameters commonly included in the majority of in situ models such as inclusion criteria, sample sizes, sample allocation methods, tooth types, intraoral appliance types, sterilization methods, study periods, outcome measures, experimental interventions, etc. Interrelationships existed between the main research topics and some parameters (outcome measures and sample allocation methods) among the evaluated articles.

Conclusions: It will be possible to establish standardized in situ protocols according to the research topics. Furthermore, data collaboration from comparable studies would be enhanced by homogeneous study designs.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Flowchart of the data extraction process.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4125579&req=5

Figure 1: Flowchart of the data extraction process.

Mentions: A search was performed using the online PubMed database with the following keywords, (in situ) AND (enamel OR dentin OR caries OR demineralization OR remineralization OR erosion). The initial search identified 265 titles and abstracts on March 25, 2013. Original full articles written in English were included and screened by two independent investigators (Figure 1). The primary screening excluded twenty articles because (1) the studies were not performed on in situ models (n = 13) and (2) only abstracts were available (n = 7). Secondary screening included articles within the scope of cariology, excluding 54 articles in the following areas, (1) medical fields (ophthalmology, urology, or others, n = 9), (2) dental fields other than cariology (prosthodontics or periodontology, n = 15), (3) tooth whitening focused only on color changes (n = 10), (4) dental materials without teeth involved (n = 9), (5) hypersensitivity treatment involving dentinal tubule occlusion (n = 7), and (6) biofilm evaluation without teeth involved (n = 4). A total of 191 articles published in 35 journals were reviewed for analysis (Table 1). One investigator produced a data formulation sheet, while the other investigator independently filled the sheet with information from ten randomly selected articles.4 Assessment and agreement were reached between the two investigators during the preliminary procedure. The extracted data from the included articles were organized according to the following factors, (1) publication types: publication years and main topics (demineralization, remineralization, erosion, and others), (2) study population: participant background, inclusion criteria, sample sizes, sample size justification, and sample allocation methods, (3) specimens and appliances: tooth types, specimen numbers, intraoral appliance types, and sterilization methods, and (4) other protocols: appliance-wearing periods, wash-out periods, supervising methods, experimental interventions, and outcome measures.


How to design in situ studies: an evaluation of experimental protocols.

Sung YH, Kim HY, Son HH, Chang J - Restor Dent Endod (2014)

Flowchart of the data extraction process.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4125579&req=5

Figure 1: Flowchart of the data extraction process.
Mentions: A search was performed using the online PubMed database with the following keywords, (in situ) AND (enamel OR dentin OR caries OR demineralization OR remineralization OR erosion). The initial search identified 265 titles and abstracts on March 25, 2013. Original full articles written in English were included and screened by two independent investigators (Figure 1). The primary screening excluded twenty articles because (1) the studies were not performed on in situ models (n = 13) and (2) only abstracts were available (n = 7). Secondary screening included articles within the scope of cariology, excluding 54 articles in the following areas, (1) medical fields (ophthalmology, urology, or others, n = 9), (2) dental fields other than cariology (prosthodontics or periodontology, n = 15), (3) tooth whitening focused only on color changes (n = 10), (4) dental materials without teeth involved (n = 9), (5) hypersensitivity treatment involving dentinal tubule occlusion (n = 7), and (6) biofilm evaluation without teeth involved (n = 4). A total of 191 articles published in 35 journals were reviewed for analysis (Table 1). One investigator produced a data formulation sheet, while the other investigator independently filled the sheet with information from ten randomly selected articles.4 Assessment and agreement were reached between the two investigators during the preliminary procedure. The extracted data from the included articles were organized according to the following factors, (1) publication types: publication years and main topics (demineralization, remineralization, erosion, and others), (2) study population: participant background, inclusion criteria, sample sizes, sample size justification, and sample allocation methods, (3) specimens and appliances: tooth types, specimen numbers, intraoral appliance types, and sterilization methods, and (4) other protocols: appliance-wearing periods, wash-out periods, supervising methods, experimental interventions, and outcome measures.

Bottom Line: Multiple variables were analyzed in relation to the publication types, participant characteristics, specimen and appliance factors, and other conditions.It will be possible to establish standardized in situ protocols according to the research topics.Furthermore, data collaboration from comparable studies would be enhanced by homogeneous study designs.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Conservative Dentistry, Seoul National University School of Dentistry and Dental Research Institute, Seoul, Korea.

ABSTRACT

Objectives: Designing in situ models for caries research is a demanding procedure, as both clinical and laboratory parameters need to be incorporated in a single study. This study aimed to construct an informative guideline for planning in situ models relevant to preexisting caries studies.

Materials and methods: An electronic literature search of the PubMed database was performed. A total 191 of full articles written in English were included and data were extracted from materials and methods. Multiple variables were analyzed in relation to the publication types, participant characteristics, specimen and appliance factors, and other conditions. Frequencies and percentages were displayed to summarize the data and the Pearson's chi-square test was used to assess a statistical significance (p < 0.05).

Results: There were many parameters commonly included in the majority of in situ models such as inclusion criteria, sample sizes, sample allocation methods, tooth types, intraoral appliance types, sterilization methods, study periods, outcome measures, experimental interventions, etc. Interrelationships existed between the main research topics and some parameters (outcome measures and sample allocation methods) among the evaluated articles.

Conclusions: It will be possible to establish standardized in situ protocols according to the research topics. Furthermore, data collaboration from comparable studies would be enhanced by homogeneous study designs.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus