ADR Sign up for ETOC alerts
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Fejerskov, O.
Right arrow Articles by Larsen, M. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Fejerskov, O.
Right arrow Articles by Larsen, M. J.

Advances in Dental Research, Vol 8, 134-143, Copyright © 1994 by International & American Associations for Dental Research


ARTICLES

Human experimental caries models: intra-oral environmental variability

O. Fejerskov, B. Nyvad and M. J. Larsen
Department of Dental Pathology, Operative Dentistry and Endodontics, Royal Dental College, Faculty of Health Sciences, Aarhus University, Denmark.

In situ caries models serve purposes other than just being a simpler way to obtain data than running a clinical trial. However, variation in information obtained not only among individuals but also, in particular, depending on different locations of the models within the oral cavity have so far been given little attention. In the present review, the aim has been to characterize the different designs of in situ caries models and to describe some important factors which may vary within the oral cavity and thus influence the outcome of the way the different in situ models are used. Advantages and disadvantages of in vivo models vs. in situ models are discussed. In the latter case, the distinction is made between dental appliance models and so-called "single tooth" models. The review concludes that in situ models differ distinctly with regard to their "biological potential". Because of regional differences in salivary film velocity, pH, and composition of the microflora, results obtained by the various models are not likely to be immediately comparable. Moreover, local factors in relation to specimen environment, such as degree of "protection" and plaque thickness, may further add to the differences. It is suggested that these observations are important in considerations of the relevance of substituting clinical trials with in situ studies. Because of the pronounced intra-oral variation in certain parameters thought to be important for caries lesion development, we conclude that no in situ model can, by itself, fulfill the role as the "model of choice". Finally, although in situ models are useful adjuncts in attempts to estimate the relative effects of new anticaries methods or compounds on caries initiation, the selection of in situ study model design will strongly depend on the aim and purpose of the study.





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
IADR Journals Advances in Dental Research ®
Journal of Dental Research ® Critical Reviews (1990-2004)
Copyright © 1994 Institutional Access Guidelines