Caries Res 2018;52:454–462
Abstract
In
situ caries research serves as a bridge between clinical research and
laboratory studies. In this kind of research, volunteers wear a
removable intraoral splint or prosthesis containing research samples.
Many different in situ models exist to investigate secondary caries.
This systematic review compared currently existing secondary caries
models and their lesion progression per day values.
Materials and Methods:
Three databases (Medline, Embase, and Cochrane) were searched for
relevant literature. Bias risk was assessed and model parameters and
caries-related outcomes were extracted by 2 independent researchers.
Where possible, caries-related outcomes were normalized by estimating
lesion progression per day by dividing lesion depth extracted from
microradiographic or microhardness data by the number of days the study
lasted.
Results: The literature search identified 335
articles. After eliminating duplicates and selection, 31 articles were
included. The models differed greatly on factors such as sample
location, presence of fluoride in the model, and analysis methods. Three
main groups could be identified by sample placement; 68% of models
placed samples palatally in the upper jaw, and the lower jaw model could
be divided into the buccal (26%) and approximal (6%) areas. Average
lesion progression in enamel next to composite was 4.3 ± 2.8 µm
(range1.1–8.8 µm/day).
Discussion: Studies conducted with
palatal models showed caries progression rates 2–5 times higher than the
estimated clinical progression rates. Lesion progression per day could
be a useful tool for future comparison of models and establishing a
standardized model.
Comments