Cytotoxic Interactive Effects of Dentin Bonding Components on Mouse Fibroblasts

Previous studies have shown a wide range of pulpal reactions to dentin bonding systems and a poor correlation between in vitro and in vivo toxicity of dentin bonding agents. Because dentin bonding agents are composed of multiple components which may diffuse through dentin, we hypothesized that these components may cause cytotoxicity through interactive (synergistic) effects. We investigated the cytotoxicities of four dentin bonding components-HEMA, Bis-GMA, TEGDMA, and UDMA-and interactive effects for three binary combinations of the dentin bonding components-HEMA and Bis-GMA, Bis-GMA and TEGDMA, and TEGDMA and UDMA. Cytotoxicities to Balb/c 3T3 mouse fibroblasts were measured by the MTT assay. Concentrations which caused 50% toxicity compared with controls (TC50 values) were compared, and the interactive effects were determined by evaluation of the differences between observed and expected MTT activities of the cells. The ranks of toxicity of the dentin bonding components in terms of TC50 values were as follows: Bis-GMA > UDMA > TEGDMA >>> HEMA (least toxic) after 24- and 72-hour exposures. As binary combinations, the three combinations of dentin bonding components interacted in three ways—synergism, additivism, and antagonism-which were influenced by the concentrations of both components. The longer period of exposure resulted in a significant increase in the cytotoxicity of the dentin bonding components and combinations. The findings indicate that both exposure time and the interactions between the dentin bonding components may be important parameters in determining the cytotoxicity of dentin bonding agents in vivo.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/66489/2/10.1177_00220345950740091601.pd

Problem-based learning in dental education: what's the evidence for and against... and is it worth the effort?

The document attached has been archived with permission from the Australian Dental Association. An external link to the publisher’s copy is included.All Australian dental schools have introduced problem-based learning (PBL) approaches to their programmes over the past decade, although the nature of the innovations has varied from school to school. Before one can ask whether PBL is better than the conventional style of education, one needs to consider three key issues. Firstly, we need to agree on what is meant by the term PBL; secondly, we need to decide what “better” means when comparing educational approaches; and thirdly, we must look carefully at how PBL is implemented in given situations. It is argued that PBL fulfils, at least in theory, some important principles relating to the development of new knowledge. It also represents a change in focus from teachers and teaching in conventional programmes to learners and learning. Generally, students enjoy PBL programmes more than conventional programmes and feel they are more nurturing. There is also some evidence of an improvement in clinical and diagnostic reasoning ability associated with PBL curricula. The main negative points raised about PBL are the costs involved and mixed reports of insufficient grounding of students in the basic sciences. Financial restraints will probably preclude the introduction of pure or fully integrated PBL programmes in Australian dental schools. However, our research and experience, as well as other published literature, indicate that well-planned hybrid PBL programmes, with matching methods of assessment, can foster development of the types of knowledge, skills and attributes that oral health professionals will need in the future.T Winning and G Townsen