‘Effects of novel root repair materials on attachment and morphological behaviour of periodontal ligament fibroblasts: Scanning electron microscopy observation’

The aim of this study was to evaluate the adhesion of periodontal ligament fibroblasts (PDLs) on newly proposed root repair materials [Biodentine, MM‐MTA, polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) bone cement, and SDR], in comparison with contemporary root repair materials [IRM, Dyract compomer, ProRoot MTA (PMTA), and Vitrebond]. Five discs from each material were fabricated in sterile Teflon molds, and the specimens were aged and prewetted in cell culture media for 96 hours. Three material discs were used for scanning electron microscopy (SEM) for the assessment of the attachment, density, and morphological changes in the PDLs, while two samples were used for energy dispersive x‐ray spectroscopy (SEM‐EDX) to determine the elemental composition of the materials. Human PDLs were plated onto the materials at a density of 10,000/well, and incubated for 3 days. The SEM micrographs were taken at different magnifications (500× and 5000×). In the SEM, the cells were attached and well spread‐out on the surfaces of the Biodentine, PMTA, and Dyract compomer, while varied cell densities and morphological alterations were observed in the Vitrebond, IRM, MM‐MTA, SDR, and PMMA bone cement groups. The SEM‐EDX analysis revealed a maximum calcium percentage in the PMTA specimens, as well a maximum silicon percentage in the Dyract compomer specimens. This in vitro study demonstrated that the Biodentine and Dyract compomer supported PDL cell adhesion and spreading. The PMTA presented a favorable scaffold for better attachment of the PDL cell aggregates. Therefore, the calcium and silicon content of a material may enhance the PDL cell attachment.     

Photovoltaics in an architectural context

In well‐populated areas, such as western Europe, PV is often integrated into the building envelope. Despite the fact that there are many examples showing that PV can be an aesthetically neutral or visually attractive element in architecture, many BIPV systems display few architectural qualities. But if well applied, PV can increase a building's character and value. Within Task 7 of the IEA PVPS programme a team of experts with an architectural background studied which key requirements needed to be complied with (design criteria for good‐quality PV projects) in order to produce successful PV integration. These criteria are discussed in the article. PV is not automatically considered an indispensable material in architectural terms. This is why, no matter how well it is integrated, PV remains an ‘added’ element. Architects can take this as their starting point and can use one of the design approaches that are presented in the article. These criteria for incorporating PV in the building design and the design criteria for good‐quality PV projects are important to architects and architectural critics in determining why a BIPV project, be it their own design or that of a colleague, is or is not aesthetically pleasing. This offers learning opportunities and reasons for follow‐up or improvement options. Architects who apply PV in a well‐thought‐out way can make their clients very happy, and thereby contribute to a greater acceptance of PV technology. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.