Dentin hypersensitivity following tooth preparation: A clinical study in the spectrum of gender

Comparison of retention of cast crown luted with glass ionomer cement in presence of two different types of desensitizer agent on extracted teeth-an in vitro study

Background

Dentin hypersensitivity is common problem between procedure of vital tooth preparation and cementation procedure of final prosthesis. So, use of desensitizing agents may be helpful to minimize the errors.

Aim

To Compare retention of cast crown luted with glass ionomer cement in presence of two different types of desensitizer agent on extracted teeth.

Material

Desensitizing agents used are bioactive Glass and GLUMA, Glass Ionomer Cement has been used as luting agent. Other required items are crown cutting bur, airotor handpiece, spatula, glass Cement carrier, microtip brush, universal testing machine.

Methodology

In this study total number of 60 premolars with good coronal anatomy, which are extracted for orthodontic purposes, were collected from Department of oral and maxillofacial surgery, Institute of dental Sciences. Then they were mounted individually in die stone block. Tooth preparation for the metal prosthesis of maxillary and mandibular premolars was carried out following the standard principles of tooth preparation use milling surveyor and they are grouped randomly into Group A- Luting cement (Control group), group B- Luting cement + Kulzer Gluma Desensitizer, group C- Luting cement + Bioactive glass. After fabrication of metal coping, tooth conditioning has been carried out then cementation was done using GIC. Retention of coping was checked using universal testing machine.

Result

A comparison was made for the mean stress value within three groups. GIC + Bioactive had the highest mean stress (6.52 ± 1.81) followed by Control group (3.88 ± 2.37). GIC ± Gluma had the least mean stress of 2.59 ± 1.19.

Conclusion

Bioactive glass + GIC exhibited higher retentive value as compared to prosthesis luted only with GIC and GIC + Gluma. So clinically it can be inferred that for vital tooth preparation bioactive glass can be used as desensitizing agent for the intermediate period till the permanent crown is luted.

Comparison between effectiveness of dentine desensitizer and one bottle self-etch adhesive on dentine hypersensitivity

BACKGROUND

Dentine hypersensitivity is one of the most common chief complaints of patients observed by dentists in their practice. However, there is a lack of universal consensus over the selection of reliable treatment modality.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness between dentine desensitizer and self-etch adhesive in patients complaining of moderate to severe dentine hypersensitivity pain.

METHODS

A total of 254 patients with moderate to severe dentine hypersensitivity were randomly divided into Group A (Single Bond Universal Agent) and Group B (Seal & Protect Agent) according to the treatment provided. Sensitivity was assessed by means of mechanical (probing) and evaporative (air blast) stimuli. Discomfort Internal Scale (DIS) was explained to patients. DIS scores were recorded after one minute and one month following the application of both agents. Descriptive statistics were calculated. Stratification was done to control confounder and post stratification chi-square test was also applied.

RESULT

The statistically significant difference (p= 0.000) in effectiveness between the two groups was observed. The mean discomfort internal scale score at baseline, after 1 minute and after 1 month in Group A was 3.65 ± 0.60, 2.33 ± 0.64 and 0.41 ± 0.71 respectively, while in Group B, it was 3.55 ± 0.58, 2.40 ± 0.62 and 0.72 ± 0.92 respectively. Overall, 86.6% patients observed improvement in dentinal sensitivity in Group A while in Group B only 67.7% patients reported reduction in sensitivity.

CONCLUSION

Self-etch adhesive significantly reduces dentin hypersensitivity, immediately after one minute of its application and is effective for a period of one month compared to desensitizing agent.

Effects of Amorphous Calcium Phosphate Administration on Dental Sensitivity during In-Office and At-Home Interventions

Background. Tooth bleaching is the most frequently employed whitening procedure in clinics. The major side effect of tooth bleaching is dental sensitivity during and after the treatment. Here, we evaluated whether the administration of amorphous calcium phosphate (ACP), during in-office and at-home procedures may impact on dental sensitivity. Methods. Eighty patients, responding to the study requirements were enrolled according to the following criteria. Group 1 (n = 40), received in-office, 10% ACP prior to 30% professional hydrogen peroxide application. The whitening procedure continued at home using 10% carbamide peroxide with 15% ACP for 15 days. Group 2 (n = 40) received only 30% hydrogen peroxide application and continued the whitening procedures at home, using 10% carbamide hydroxide, without ACP- Casein phosphopeptides (CPP), for 15 days. Dental sensitivity was recorded with a visual analogue scale (VAS) at baseline, immediately after, and at 15 days after treatment in the two groups. Results. We observed that patients receiving ACP in the bleaching mixture experienced decreased dental sensitivity (* p ≤ 0.05), as detected by VAS scale analysis immediately following the procedures. Patients receiving ACP-CPP during at-home procedures showed a statistically significant (*** p ≤ 0.0001) reduction of dental sensitivity. Conclusions. We demonstrated that ACP-CPP administration, while exerting the same whitening effects as in control subjects receiving potassium fluoride (PF), had an impact on the reduction of dental sensitivity, improving patient compliance.

Clinical performance of laminate and non-laminate resin composite restorations: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

A systematic review was undertaken to determine the clinical outcomes of resin modified glass-ionomer cement or glass-ionomer cement-resin composite (RMGIC/GIC-RC) laminate restorations and flowable resin composite (FRC)-lined RC restorations compared to that of non-laminate RC restorations.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched and filtered for relevant papers by assessing titles, abstracts and full-text articles. Randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) were included, comparing the clinical performance of RMGIC/GIC-RC laminate restorations and FRC-lined restorations with RC restorations as the control. The articles were categorized and critically appraised. Raw data were used for a fixed effects meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Thirteen articles were included in the review. Five evaluated FRC-lined restorations, and eight studies evaluated RMGIC/GIC-RC laminate restorations, comparing with non-laminate RC restorations. Three of eight RMGIC/GIC-RC laminate restorations assessed only postoperative sensitivity. A meta-analysis could only be conducted in three studies with the FRC-lined restorations as the intervention. The meta-analysis found no significant difference in clinical failures between FRC-lined RC restorations and RC restorations with no lining (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on current clinical evidence, a FRC lining is no more advantageous than RC restorations with no FRC lining. More long-term RCTs are required, particularly for evaluating RMGIC/GIC-RC laminate restorations.

Efficacy of Diode Laser and Gluma on Post-Preparation Sensitivity: A Randomized Split-Mouth Clinical Study

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare the efficacy of a 940-nm diode laser and Gluma desensitizer on post-preparation sensitivity of prepared teeth.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty patients with 76 teeth participated in the study. For each patient, prepared molar or premolar in one quadrant were individually irradiated by laser. In the symmetrical quadrant, Gluma was applied onto the prepared teeth. No treatment was performed in the control group. Temporary crowns were placed after preparation. Pain response to tactile stimulus was assessed at one day, one week, and two weeks using visual analog scale (VAS). Intergroup comparisons were made with Kruskal Wallis test (p < 0.05).

RESULTS

Mean VAS scores of the control group were statistically higher than laser and Gluma groups (p < 0.017). The difference between VAS scores of the laser and Gluma groups was statistically insignificant (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

A significant reduction in level of sensitivity after both treatments was observed. The reduction of sensitivity with Gluma was not significantly superior to laser. No significant additional reduction occurred in level of sensitivity from the first day to the second week after both treatments.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The application of Gluma or a 940-nm diode laser may be considered as effective in reducing sensitivity after tooth preparation without superiority of either method. (J Esthet Restor Dent 28:405-411, 2016).