Raskin A, D'Hoore W, Gonthier S, Degrange M, Déjou J
Department of Operative Dentistry and Endodontics, School of Dentistry, Université catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium.
J Adhes Dent. 2001 Winter;3(4):295-308.
The literature contains conflicting data about in vitro microleakage evaluations and their usefulness and reliability. No standardization has yet been established. Here we consider features of published studies that might affect the results of the in vitro microleakage tests.
We reviewed 144 in vitro microleakage studies, published in 14 international reviews between 1992 and 1998, which comprised 917 sets or groups of experiments. The published studies were entered in a database and compared using selected literature criteria: sample, cavities, restoration procedures, thermocycling and mechanical cycling, evaluation method.
The methods employed vary widely. The most frequent methodological choices (%) were (1) specimen storage after extraction: duration (unspecified, 59.2), medium (distilled or deionized water, 33.8), temperature (unspecified, 52.2), additives (none, 47.0); (2) aging method (79.1): duration before aging (< 24 h, 35.9); medium and temperature of storage before aging (distilled or deionized water, 26.8; 37 degrees C, 54.3); (3) medium of cycling (tap water, 50.5), number of cycles ([250-500], 34.6), number of baths (2, 84.0), bath temperature (5 degrees C to 55 degrees C, 60.6), immersion dwell time (30 s, 44.3); (4) tracer: type (basic fuchsin, 40.7), time of immersion (after thermocycling and/or mechanical cycles, 64.1), immersion duration (basic fuchsin: 24 h, 59.5); assessment of dye penetration of sections (91.7): direction (perpendicular, 88.5), number (1, 47.1).
The great variability in the methods used in these 144 studies prevented meta-analysis and comparison of the results, thus reducing the value of these methods.
文献中关于体外微渗漏评估及其有效性和可靠性的数据相互矛盾。尚未建立标准化方法。在此，我们探讨已发表研究中可能影响体外微渗漏测试结果的特征。
我们回顾了1992年至1998年间发表在14篇国际综述中的144项体外微渗漏研究，这些研究包含917组实验。将已发表的研究录入数据库，并根据选定的文献标准进行比较：样本、窝洞、修复程序、热循环和机械循环、评估方法。
所采用的方法差异很大。最常见的方法选择（%）为：（1）拔牙后样本储存：持续时间（未指定，59.2）、介质（蒸馏水或去离子水，33.8）、温度（未指定，52.2）、添加剂（无，47.0）；（2）老化方法（79.1）：老化前持续时间（<24小时，35.9）；老化前储存的介质和温度（蒸馏水或去离子水，26.8；37摄氏度，54.3）；（3）循环介质（自来水，50.5）、循环次数（[250 - 500]，34.6）、浴数（2，84.0）、浴温（5摄氏度至55摄氏度，60.6）、浸泡停留时间（30秒，44.3）；（4）示踪剂：类型（碱性品红，40.7）、浸泡时间（热循环和/或机械循环后，64.1）、浸泡持续时间（碱性品红：24小时，59.5）；切片染料渗透评估（91.7）：方向（垂直，88.5）、数量（1，47.1）。
这144项研究中所使用方法的巨大差异阻碍了荟萃分析和结果比较，并因此降低了这些方法的价值。
