RESEARCH ARTICLE


Evaluation of Five Different Desensitizers: A Comparative Dentin Permeability and SEM Investigation In Vitro



Nasibe Aycan Yilmaz*, 1, Ertan Ertas2, Hasan Orucoğlu3
1 Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Adnan Menderes, Aydin, Turkey
2 Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Ondokuz Mayis, Samsun, Turkey
3 Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Abant Izzet Baysal, Bolu, Turkey


Article Metrics

CrossRef Citations:
0
Total Statistics:

Full-Text HTML Views: 3047
Abstract HTML Views: 760
PDF Downloads: 357
ePub Downloads: 189
Total Views/Downloads: 4353
Unique Statistics:

Full-Text HTML Views: 748
Abstract HTML Views: 358
PDF Downloads: 247
ePub Downloads: 140
Total Views/Downloads: 1493



© Yilmaz et al.; Licensee Bentham Open

open-access license: This is an open access article licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial 4.0 International Public License (CC BY-NC 4.0) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/legalcode), which permits unrestricted, non-commercial use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the work is properly cited.

* Address correspondence to this author at the Adnan Menderes Universitesi Dis Hekimligi Fak. Restoratif Dis Tedavisi A.D. Hasan Efendi Mah. No:1 Eski Tip Fakultesi Yerleskesi, Aydin, Turkey; Tel: +902562133939; Fax: +902562151918; E-mails: dt.aycanyilmaz@yahoo.com, aycan.yilmaz@adu.edu.tr


Abstract

Background/Objective:

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and durability of five different dentin desensitizers (Gluma Desensitizer Powergel, Bifluorid 12, Gluma Self Etch Bond, D/Sense Crystal, Nupro Sensodyne Prophylaxis Paste with Novamin) on tubule occlusion and dentin permeability reduction in vitro.

Method:

The quantitative changes in permeability of 100 dentin discs were measured after desensitizer treatments and following post-treatments of 6% citric acid challenge for 1 min or immersion in artificial saliva for 24 hours under hydrostatic pressure generated by a computerised fluid filtration meter. Qualitative SEM analyses were also carried out.

Results:

Dentin permeability decreased after desensitizer application in all groups. Nevertheless, only the difference between ‘Gluma Self Etch Bond’ and ‘Nupro Sensodyne Prophylaxis Paste with Novamin’ groups was significantly different (p<0.05). Dentin permeability increased significantly after post-treatments (p<0.05). There was no statistically difference among the citric acid-subgroups (p>0.05). Of all the artificial saliva-subgroups, only the difference between ‘D/Sense Crystal’ and ‘Bifluorid 12’ was significantly different (p<0.05). In SEM analysis, morphological changes were detected on the dentin surface and within the tubules following desensitizer treatments and post-treatments.

Conclusion:

All the desensitizers significantly reduced dentin permeability by changing the morphology of the dentin surface and/or dentinal tubules. Following post-treatments, there was some reduction in the efficacy of the desensitizers which was represented by the reduction in permeability values. SEM analysis revealed some physical changes in the dentin structure which can partly give an explanation to the reduced efficacy of tested desensitizers.

Keywords: Dentin permeability, Dentin sensitivity, Scanning electron microscopy, Gluma desensitizer powergel.