In vitro studies form a pivotal role in dental research contribution to a substantial evidence base. The reporting standards of these studies are not uniform thus resulting in lacunae in evidence reported. The effort of this concept note is to propose a Checklist for Reporting in vitro Studies (CRIS guidelines) that would promote quality and transparency in reporting in vitro studies.

J Conserv Dent, Official publication of Federation of Operative Dentistry (India)

This in-vitro study tested the fracture resistance of endodontically treated molars with Mesial-Occluso-Distal (MOD) cavities restored with fibre reinforced composite material everX posterior in comparision with hybrid composite and ribbond fiber composite. Fifty intact freshly extracted human mandibular first molars were collected and were randomly divided into five groups (n=10). Group 1: positive control (PC) intact teeth without any endodontic preparation. In groups 2 through 6 after endodontic procedure standard MOD cavities were prepared and restored with their respective core materials as follows: group 2, negative control (NC) left unrestored or temporary flling was applied. Group 3, Hybrid composite (HC) as a core material (Te-Econom Plus Ivoclar Vivadent Asia) group 4, Ribbond (Ribbond; Seattle, WA, USA)+conventional composite resin (RCR) group 5, everX posterior (everX Posterior GC EUROPE)+conventional composite resin (EXP) after thermocycling fracture resistance for the samples were tested using universal testing machine. The results were analysed using ANOVA and Tukey's HSD post hoc tests. Mean fracture resistance (in Newton, N) was group 1: 1568.4±221.71N, group 2: 891.0±50.107N, group 3: 1418.3±168.71N, group 4:1716.7±199.51N and group 5: 1994.8±254.195N. Among the materials tested, endodontically treated teeth restored with everX posterior fiber reinforced composite showed superior fracture resistance.

Background: Large cavity designs and access cavities impair endodontically treated tooth fracture resistance. As the tooth’s strength is known to reduce significantly after the root canal treatment, occlusal loading as a result of functions such as chewing, biting and certain parafunctional tendencies makes the endodontically treated tooth vulnerable to fracture. Hence, after endodontic treatment, it is vital to give adequate and appropriate restorative material to avoid tooth fractures. Accordingly, the choice of such restorative material should be dictated by the property of fracture resistance. Objective: The goal of this study was to conduct a systematic review and critical analysis of available data from in vitro studies examining the fracture resistance of endodontically treated posterior teeth restored with fiber-reinforced composites. Methodology: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRIS-MA) Statement was used to guide the reporting of this systematic review A comprehensive literature search was performed using MEDLINE (via PubMed), Scopus, ScienceDirect, Google Scholar, and LILACS. A manual search of the reference lists of the articles was also performed. The databases provided a total of 796 studies from the electronic systematic search. The databases provided a total of 796 studies from the electronic systematic search. Two reviewers scrutinized the papers for eligibility based on inclusion/exclusion criteria and extracted data. The studies were assessed for their potential risk of bias. Based on modified JBI & CRIS (checklist for reporting in vitro studies) guidelines, along with the methodology and treatment objective, we have formulated 13 parameters specifically to assess the risk of bias. A total of 18 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included for qualitative analysis. Considering the high heterogeneity of the studies included, a meta-analysis could not be performed. Results: The majority of the included studies had a moderate or high risk of bias. When compared to traditional hybrid composites, fiber-reinforced composites showed increased fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth in the majority of investigations. On the other hand, limited evidence was found for the bulk fill composites. Moreover, moderate evidence was found for the fracture resistance of inlays and fiber posts with fiber-reinforced composites for core build-up in endodontically treated teeth. No evidence could be found comparing the fracture resistance of endo crowns and fiber-reinforced composites in endodontically treated teeth. Conclusion: According to the research, using fiber-reinforced composites instead of conventional hybrid composites improves the fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth. However, there was a high risk of bias in the research considered. No judgments could be reached about the superiority of one material over another based-on comparisons between other core restorations.

Aim: The purpose of this paper is to review the literature on the clinical effectiveness of contemporary resin-based dentin bonding agents primarily focussing on the longevity of restoration. Materials and Methods: The literature published from June 2004 up to September 2010 was reviewed for clinical trials that tested the effectiveness of dentin bonding agents in the longevity of noncarious class V restoration. Results of each study reported using the USPHS criteria for clinical assessment of restoration were included and tabulated. The American Dental Association guidelines for dentin and enamel adhesives were used as a reference to compare the performance of individual bonding agents. Kruskal-Wallis followed by Mann-Whitney U was done to compare the mean Alfa score percentage for the three categories of bonding systems [etch-and-rinse (ER), self-etch primer (SEP), and self-etch-adhesive (SEA)]. Results: A comparison of the mean Alfa score percentages revealed no difference between the ER, SEP, and SEA categories of bonding systems except for marginal adaptation where ER was found to be superior to SEA. Conclusion: The clinical effectiveness of resin-based bonding agents is comparable among the three categories.