Standardization of antimicrobial testing of dental devices

Camilleri, Josette; Moliz, T. Arias; Bettencourt, Ana; Costa, Joana; Martins, Filomena; Rabadijeva, D.; Rodríguez, Daniel Salazar; Visai, Livia; Combes, Christèle; Farrugia, Cher; Koidis, Petros; Neves, Conceição

doi:10.1016/j.dental.2019.12.006

Cited by 39 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The testing outline for the materials followed a previously reported sequence [21], which includes physicochemical tests, two basic antimicrobial tests (agar diffusion and direct contact), and the biological test (MTT) using human fibroblast cells. Volume change method after immersion [17] using µCT and simulated root-end cavities were preferred, once it is considered an amount of material compatible to clinical reality, along with the precision of µCT analysis, once these materials should present long-term stability to ensure the sealing necessary avoiding bacterial penetration.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Physicochemical, antimicrobial, and biological properties of White-MTAFlow

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Where a licence is displayed above, please note the terms and conditions of the licence govern your use of this document.When citing, please reference the published version. Take down policyWhile the University of Birmingham exercises care and attention in making items available there are rare occasions when an item has been uploaded in error or has been deemed to be commercially or otherwise sensitive.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Physicochemical, antimicrobial, and biological properties of White-MTAFlow

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Overall, CSBS presented similar or even higher antimicrobial properties than conventional sealers. However, a lack of standardization for assessment of antimicrobial properties has been highlighted [ 85 ]. Moreover, it must be pointed out that the clinician should rely on the root canal disinfection/cleaning procedure instead of the antibacterial properties of endodontic sealers.…”

Section: Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Calcium Silicate-Based Root Canal Sealers: A Narrative Review and Clinical Perspectives

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the last two decades, calcium silicate-based materials have grown in popularity. As root canal sealers, these formulations have been extensively investigated and compared with conventional sealers, such as zinc oxide–eugenol and epoxy resin-based sealers, in in vitro studies that showed their promising properties, especially their biocompatibility, antimicrobial properties, and certain bioactivity. However, the consequence of their higher solubility is a matter of debate and still needs to be clarified, because it may affect their long-term sealing ability. Unlike conventional sealers, those sealers are hydraulic, and their setting is conditioned by the presence of humidity. Current evidence reveals that the properties of calcium silicate-based sealers vary depending on their formulation. To date, only a few short-term investigations addressed the clinical outcome of calcium silicate-based root canal sealers. Their use has been showed to be mainly based on practitioners’ clinical habits rather than manufacturers’ recommendations or available evidence. However, their particular behavior implies modifications of the clinical protocol used for conventional sealers. This narrative review aimed to discuss the properties of calcium silicate-based sealers and their clinical implications, and to propose rational indications for these sealers based on the current knowledge.

show abstract

“…A positive control is any well‐characterized material and/or substance that, when evaluated by a specific test method, demonstrates the suitability of the test system to yield a reproducible, appropriately positive or reactive response, whereas a negative control is a well‐characterized material and/or substance that, when evaluated by a specific test method, demonstrates the suitability of the test system to yield a reproducible, appropriately negative, non‐reactive or minimal response. The negative control can also be important to define background or baseline values (Camilleri et al, 2020). Internal controls are also necessary for molecular assays to ensure that the assays are functioning with a high degree of specificity.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

PRILE 2021 guidelines for reporting laboratory studies in Endodontology: A consensus‐based development

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reproducible, skilfully conducted and unbiased laboratory studies provide new knowledge, which can inform clinical research and eventually translate into better patient care. To help researchers improve the quality and reproducibility of their research prior to a publication peer‐review, this paper describes the process that was followed during the development of the Preferred Reporting Items for Laboratory studies in Endodontology (PRILE) 2021 guidelines and which used a well‐documented consensus‐based methodology. A steering committee was created with eight individuals (PM, RO, OP, IR, JS, EP, JJ and SP), plus the project leaders (PD, VN). The steering committee prepared an initial checklist by combining and adapting items from the modified Consolidated Statement of Reporting Trials checklist for reporting in vitro studies of dental materials and the Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications principles as well as adding several new items. The steering committee then formed a PRILE Delphi Group (PDG) and PRILE Online Meeting Group (POMG) to provide expert advice and feedback on the initial draft checklist and flowchart. The members of the PDG participated in an online Delphi process to achieve consensus on the items within the PRILE 2021 checklist and the accompanying flowchart for clarity and suitability. The PRILE checklist and flowchart developed by the online Delphi process were discussed further by the POMG. This online meeting was conducted on 12 February 2021 via the Zoom platform. Following this meeting, the steering committee developed a final version of the PRILE 2021 guidelines and flowchart, which was piloted by several authors when writing up a laboratory study for publication. Authors are encouraged to use the PRILE 2021 guidelines and flowchart to improve the clarity, completeness and quality of reports describing laboratory studies in Endodontology. The PRILE 2021 checklist and flowchart are freely available and downloadable from the Preferred Reporting Items for study Designs in Endodontology website (http://pride-endodonticguidelines.org/prile/).

show abstract

Standardization of antimicrobial testing of dental devices

Cited by 39 publications

References 4 publications

Physicochemical, antimicrobial, and biological properties of White-MTAFlow

Physicochemical, antimicrobial, and biological properties of White-MTAFlow

Calcium Silicate-Based Root Canal Sealers: A Narrative Review and Clinical Perspectives

PRILE 2021 guidelines for reporting laboratory studies in Endodontology: A consensus‐based development

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About