Jean-françois Roulet - Academia.edu (original) (raw)

Uploads

ARTICLES-COMPLETE LIST by Jean-françois Roulet

Objective: To investigate the relation between handling characteristics and application time of f... more Objective: To investigate the relation between handling characteristics and application time of four composite materials with subjectively different viscosities. Methods: Eight experienced faculty members placed one Class II and one Class IV restoration in a random sequence into pre-prepared plastic teeth mounted on a typodont model, each using 4 types of composites (Herculite Précis (M1), Kerr; Tertic N-Ceram (M2), Ivoclar Vivadent; Filtek Z350 (M3), 3M-ESPE; Charisma Opal (M4), HareausKulzer), resulting in a total of 64 restorations placed. The application process was filmed with a high definition video camera. Two evaluators watched the recordings in a random sequence as well, timed the composite application and wrote down their observations, which were dichotomized into positive and negative ones. Application times were analysed with two-way Kruskal Wallis test (time x dentist) and the observation data were analysed with chi square test (P < 0.05).

Papers by Jean-françois Roulet

Stomatology Edu Journal, 2014

Dear Readers, As dentists we are part of the medical community. We are the experts in everything ... more Dear Readers, As dentists we are part of the medical community. We are the experts in everything related to the health of the oral cavity and its surroundings. Therefore ethical guidelines require us to deliver treatment or provide advice of the highest quality for the benefit of our patients. This sounds great; however it includes an inherent conflict: how to define quality. This is very difficult in medicine and dentistry. Quality may be divided into process quality (in simple terms: do the right thing) and outcome quality (in simple terms: do it right). Both need definitions, what is good or bad; and this is where the problem sits. Once upon a time our teachers were setting the requirement for what is considered good quality, often based on their opinion, and we students had to comply. These days things got more complicated. We need to base our definitions on facts or results based on experiments. For dental care and medicine the ultimate measurement of good quality is the survival of the restoration or the patient after an intervention or therapy. "Evidence based" is the magic word here. However we cannot base all our doing only on results of clinical studies, as we would postpone good treatment options to our patients for years. Therefore we need to accept lower evidence levels such as in vitro studies as well, to make up our mind. In the age of the internet information is available instantaneously and globally, which is a very good thing. The back side of this is the information overload and the black side is that the average user cannot distinguish anymore which information is relevant or true, or which information is pure claim or just intended to motivate the target reader to use it, or to use the product described. This is where peer review becomes important. Anders Linde, the Editor of the European Journal of Oral Sciences once stated: "Nothing is scientifically shown or proven before it has been published in a scientific journal with a peer review system, so one can critically judge what was done, how it was done and evaluate how solid it is." The application of this by an editorial team means that a group of experts in the field (the peers) will have very carefully looked at every document which is finally published. They will check if the information provided is new, if the formatting is correct, if the language is used correctly, if the methods used make sense and are free of bias. Statisticians will look at the results to make sure that the outcome is really a function of the experimental variables. The experts will also ask themselves "Does it make sense?" and will critically look at results which may significantly differ from other similar tests. Finally, the editorial team will make sure that the conclusions drawn are strictly related to the outcome of the experiments. If there are questions, which is almost always the case, then the authors are challenged to address them. These are a few facts that make the difference between a non peer reviewed publication and a peer reviewed publication. Of course during the review process some manuscripts get rejected. These are the ones that do not fulfill the quality requirements or do not survive the critical review because of incurable flaws (mostly in the methodology). Notwithstanding, the main objective of the review process is to improve the quality of the manuscript, so you, readers, can trust the information provided. So, in order to be credible, there is no alternative to peer review!

Stomatology Edu Journal, 2019

Prophylaxe und Präventivzahnmedizin, 2002

Clinical Oral Investigations, Feb 12, 2008

Quintessence Pub. Co. eBooks, 2001

Protection of dentin and pulp protection of the pulp-dentin complex with adhesive resins moisture... more Protection of dentin and pulp protection of the pulp-dentin complex with adhesive resins moisture management with rubber dam in operative dentistry tissue and moisture management in operative dentistry esthetic anterior restorations direct posterior restorations-techniques for effective placement the "composite-up" technique for direct posterior restorations materials and luting cements for indirect restorations indirect restorations for anterior teeth - space - the eternal problem the control and maintenance of dentoperiodontal relationships advances in bonded ceramic restorations for the anterior dentition computer veneers with the cerec 3 esthetic posterior indirect restorations bonded partial restorations for endodontically treated teeth the oral and dental effects of aging operative treatment for elderly people managing of fractured and worn teeth in elderly patients conservative dentistry - educational patterns in Europe.

Quintessence Pub. Co. eBooks, 2001

Prevention of dental caries prevention-practical aspects methods for caries detection assessment ... more Prevention of dental caries prevention-practical aspects methods for caries detection assessment of caries risk in the clinic - a modern approach decision making in restorative dentistry initial management - to drill or not to drill? replacement or repair of dental restorations biological aspects - effects of restorative materials adhesion new materials and techniques efficiency of new enamel-dentin bonding systems improving outcome - anterior restorations conservative treatments in the esthetic zone improving outcome - posterior restorations posterior esthetics with composite resins longevity of restorations quality guidelines of operative dentistry - the Swiss approach.

Operative Dentistry publishes articles that advance the practice of operative dentistry. The scop... more Operative Dentistry publishes articles that advance the practice of operative dentistry. The scope of the journal includes conservation and restoration of teeth; the scientific foundation of operative dental therapy; dental materials; dental education; and the social, political, and economic aspects of dental practice. Review papers, book reviews, letters, and classified ads for faculty positions are also published.

Stomatology Edu Journal, 2017

Stomatology Edu Journal, 2019

Review is something that can have all shades of grey, even black. The black ones are allegedly re... more Review is something that can have all shades of grey, even black. The black ones are allegedly reviewed, unfortunately a practice that can be observed in the literature. I can read "peer reviewed" published papers where I wonder if anybody with a functioning brain has ever read it. In the grey area, you find things as if copied from an advertisement: "Reduce the editorial time by proactively inviting the articles reviewed via our tools and reports" or "…article reports for language, plagiarism, reference accuracy & actuality will also help you to review the articles". This sounds as if machines were doing the review. My question is whether this software has the finesse of your trade. The next version is the editor' s review. An editor may be excellent in picking up flawed language or unprecise diction. But again, no editor may be that smart and knowledgeable in order to pick scientific errors in a very specialized area of dentistry. Therefore, we rely on peer review, which means that the editor has a list of potential reviewers that are actively working on the specialty of the manuscript that needs to be reviewed. The backside of this approach is that the more qualified and specialized such a person is, the busier he/she usually is. Consequently, it has become a real pain to find good reviewers, willing to read and evaluate a manuscript in a relatively short time. In order to improve the peer review process, we decided to do a major investment and purchase the Manuscript Manager (www.manuscriptmanager.com). I can proudly announce that the Issue Stomatology Edu Journal 2019; 6 (1) is the first issue that was produced with manuscripts that were processed with the Manuscript Manager. Once a manuscript is submitted by an author, the editor is automatically warned by an e-mail, which reduces the waiting time to be processed. The editor gets all the files in the original for the initial formal assessment. Then based on the content of the manuscript, the editor can select from a databank of specialized reviewers the best for the given manuscript. In the reviewer databank the qualification as well as the review history is visible on a click. Once selected, the potential reviewers are linked to the manuscript, while in the background the system compiles a pdf file for the reviewers. The editor can now create a priority list for the selected reviewers and invite the two most prominent ones for the review. With another click, an e-mail is created to invite the reviewer and the PDF file is automatically attached. The powerful thing about the Manuscript Manager is that it can be programmed to remind the invited reviewers if they did not answer or if they are late with submitting the review. Furthermore, the system switches automatically to the next reviewer on the list, if some time limits established for the reviewers are exceeded. By doing this we do not unnecessarily waste some time. Once two reviews are returned, again the editor gets an e-mail "decision required. If a revision is needed, which is most often the case, usually, if the authors follow the instructions to create a table with the reviewers' comments, the authors' reaction and actions, the editor is then able to come up with a decision, which follows the mechanisms described above. On top of this, the system automatically keeps a log book of the events. The editor can exactly follow every step of the process and follow all e-mails exchanged as well. Thus, we get the guarantee that the peer review was done well and we also have transparency. Summa summarum, with this outstanding tool we can serve the readers better with quality checked manuscripts and the authors with a transparent procedure. If needed, we can document the process for every single manuscript, which is important to position the Stomatology Edu Journal on a high scientific level.

Journal of The Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials, May 1, 2023

Journal of Adhesive Dentistry, 2007

About 35 years ago, Ryge provided a practical approach to the evaluation of the clinical performa... more About 35 years ago, Ryge provided a practical approach to the evaluation of the clinical performance of restorative materials. This systematic approach was soon universally accepted. While that methodology has served us well, a large number of scientific methodologies and more detailed questions have arisen that require more rigor. Current restorative materials have vastly improved clinical performance, and any changes over time are not easily detected by the limited sensitivity of the Ryge criteria in short-term clinical investigations. However, the clinical evaluation of restorations not only involves the restorative material per se but also different operative techniques. For instance, a composite resin may show good longevity data when applied in conventional cavities but not in modified operative approaches. Insensitivity, combined with the continually evolving and nonstandard investigator modifications of the categories, scales, and reporting methods, has created a body of literature that is extremely difficult to interpret meaningfully. In many cases, the insensitivity of the original Ryge methods leads to misinterpretation as good clinical performance. While there are many good features of the original system, it is now time to move on to a more contemporary one. The current review approaches this challenge in two ways: (1) a proposal for a modern clinical testing protocol for controlled clinical trials, and (2) an in-depth discussion of relevant clinical evaluation parameters, providing 84 references that are primarily related to issues or problems for clinical research trials. Together, these two parts offer a standard for the clinical testing of restorative materials/procedures and provide significant guidance for research teams in the design and conduct of contemporary clinical trials. Part 1 of the review considers the recruitment of subjects, restorations per subject, clinical events, validity versus bias, legal and regulatory aspects, rationales for clinical trial designs, guidelines for design, randomization, number of subjects, characteristics of participants, clinical assessment, standards and calibration, categories for assessment, criteria for evaluation, and supplemental documentation. Part 2 of the review considers categories of assessment for esthetic evaluation, functional assessment, biological responses to restorative materials, and statistical analysis of results. The overall review represents a considerable effort to include a range of clinical research interests over the past years. As part of the recognition of the importance of these suggestions, the review is being published simultaneously in identical form in both the Journal of Adhesive Dentistry and Clinical Oral Investigations. Additionally, an extended abstract will be published in the International Dental Journal, giving a link to the web full version. This should help to introduce these considerations more quickly to the scientific community.

Georg Thieme Verlag eBooks, 2002

Oral Health & Preventive Dentistry, 2015

Journal of Endodontics, Apr 1, 1995

Several clinical uses of calcium hydroxide rely on the ability of the material to diffuse through... more Several clinical uses of calcium hydroxide rely on the ability of the material to diffuse through intact dentin and affect healing of adjacent tissues. However, hydroxyl ion diffusion may be limited due to buffering interactions between hydroxyl ions and components of dentin (Wang and Hume, 1988). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the permeability of hydroxyl ion through disks of human coronal dentin in an "in vitro diffusion chamber" and to determine if permeability characteristics change with continued diffusion. Hydraulic conductance values were determined for each dentin disk before and after the diffusion experiments to verify disk permeability and integrity. Hydroxyl ion diffusion was monitored using a pH microelectrode. Two diffusion trials were accomplished for each of 20 dentin test disks, 5 solution shams, positive and negative controls. Permeability coefficients were calculated and the diffusion trials were compared using paired t test and regression analyses. Average hydroxyl ion permeability was found to increase significantly on the second diffusion trial (p<0.05). Permeability correlated well with dentin thickness for most disks on retrial (R2=0.876) but did not with initial diffusion attempts (R2=0.001). These data suggest that the slow initial diffusion of hydroxyl ion through dentin may be .due to buffering interactions with the dentin but that this effect diminishes over time allowing improved permeability.

Stomatology Edu Journal, 2014

Stomatology Edu Journal, 2019

Prophylaxe und Präventivzahnmedizin, 2002

Clinical Oral Investigations, Feb 12, 2008

Quintessence Pub. Co. eBooks, 2001

Stomatology Edu Journal, 2017

Stomatology Edu Journal, 2019

Journal of The Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials, May 1, 2023

Journal of Adhesive Dentistry, 2007

Georg Thieme Verlag eBooks, 2002

Oral Health & Preventive Dentistry, 2015

Journal of Endodontics, Apr 1, 1995

Brazilian Dental Journal, Aug 1, 2017

The aim of this study was to evaluate microtensile bond strength (µTBS) of self-etch and etch-and... more The aim of this study was to evaluate microtensile bond strength (µTBS) of self-etch and etch-and-rinse adhesives systems compared in different dentin regions (central-CD or proximal-PD) in a class II cavity configuration. A class II (mesial-oclusal-distal) cavity configuration was simulated on 20 extracted human third-molars (4 mm wide/3 mm deep). Etch-and-rinse adhesive (Scotchbond Multi Purpose, n=5, SBMP and Optibond FL, n=5, OPFL) and self-etch adhesives (Clearfil SE Bond, n=5, CSE and Optibond XTR, n=5, OPXTR) were applied. Class II restorations were performed by incremental technique and photo-activated (Bluephase/G2). Samples were sectioned to beam shape (1 mm² cross-section), placed on Geraldeli's device for µTBS test (0.5 mm/min cross-head speed). Fracture patterns were analyzed on stereomicroscope and classified as cohesive-resin, adhesive, mixed/resin or mixed/dentin. Samples (n=4) were prepared for scanning electron microscope observation. Data were submitted to one-way ANOVA with Split-Plot arrangement and Tukey's test (α=0.05). There were no statistically significant differences among SBMP, OPFL, CSE and OPXTR on CD (p>0.05). However, on PD for SBMP and OPFL, µTBS values were significantly lower compared to CSE and OPXTR (p<0.05). In all groups, mixed failure pattern was more frequently observed, except for SBMP/CD (adhesive). In class II type cavity configuration, PD location negatively influenced bond strength of etch-and-rinse adhesive systems. Opposite to self-etching adhesives, which presented higher bond strength values compared to etch-and-rinse adhesives in PD.