• Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science
• /
• v.43 no.6
• /
• pp.269-275
• /
• 2013

Purpose: In this study, the effect of calcium sodium phosphosilicate (NovaMin) desensitizing agent, which is a powder-based system, and hydroxyethyl methacrylate and glutaraldehyde (Gluma desensitizer), which is liquid-based system, on dentinal tubule occlusion was analyzed by scanning electron microscope. The effects of the above two along with one control group were compared to determine the more effective method of sealing the dentinal tubules after initial application. Methods: Twenty specimens were allocated to each of 3 groups: Control, Gluma desensitizer, and NovaMin. Two additional samples were also prepared and treated with Gluma and NovaMin; these samples were longitudinally fractured. The specimens were prepared from extracted sound human premolars and were stored in 10% formalin at room temperature. The teeth were cleaned of gross debris and then sectioned to provide one to two dentin specimens. The dentin specimens were etched with 6% citric acid for 2 minutes and rinsed in distilled water. Control discs were dried, and the test discs were treated with the desensitizing agents as per the manufacturer's instructions. The discs as well as longitudinal sections were later analyzed under the scanning electron microscope. The proportions of completely occluded, partially occluded, and open tubules within each group were calculated. The ratios of completely and partially occluded tubules to the total tubules for all the groups was determined, and the data was statistically analyzed using nonparametric tests and statistical significance was calculated. Results: NovaMin showed more completely occluded tubules ($0.545{\pm}0.051$) while Gluma desensitizer showed more partially occluded tubules ($0.532{\pm}0.075$). The differences among all the groups were statistically significant ($P{\leq}0.05$). Conclusion: Both materials were effective in occluding dentinal tubules but NovaMin appeared more promising in occluding tubules completely after initial application.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.4 no.3
• /
• pp.127-133
• /
• 2012

PURPOSE. Many dentists use desensitizing agents to prevent hypersensitivity. This study compared and evaluated the effect of two desensitizing agents on the retention of cast crowns when cemented with various luting agents. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Ninety freshly extracted human molars were prepared with flat occlusal surface, 6 degree taper and approximately 4 mm axial length. The prepared specimens were divided into 3 groups and each group is further divided into 3 subgroups. Desensitizing agents used were GC Tooth Mousse and $GLUMA^{(R)}$ desensitizer. Cementing agents used were zinc phosphate, glass ionomer and resin modified glass ionomer cement. Individual crowns with loop were made from base metal alloy. Desensitizing agents were applied before cementation of crowns except for control group. Under tensional force the crowns were removed using an automated universal testing machine. Statistical analysis included one-way ANOVA followed by Turkey-Kramer post hoc test at a preset alpha of 0.05. RESULTS. Resin modified glass ionomer cement exhibited the highest retentive strength and all dentin treatments resulted in significantly different retentive values (In Kg.): GLUMA ($49.02{\pm}3.32$) > Control ($48.61{\pm}3.54$) > Tooth mousse ($48.34{\pm}2.94$). Retentive strength for glass ionomer cement were GLUMA ($41.14{\pm}2.42$) > Tooth mousse ($40.32{\pm}3.89$) > Control ($39.09{\pm}2.80$). For zinc phosphate cement the retentive strength were lowest GLUMA ($27.92{\pm}3.20$) > Control ($27.69{\pm}3.39$) > Tooth mousse ($25.27{\pm}4.60$). CONCLUSION. The use of $GLUMA^{(R)}$ desensitizer has no effect on crown retention. GC Tooth Mousse does not affect the retentive ability of glass ionomer and resin modified glass ionomer cement, but it decreases the retentive ability of zinc phosphate cement.

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.36 no.1
• /
• pp.26-49
• /
• 1998

The purpose of this study was to confirm the formation of hybrid layer and resin tags in dentin tissue and the possibility of bonding between luting cements used for the prosthesis and the resinous surface coated with resin bonding agents to prevent the dentin hypersensitivity after abutment preparation. Some resin bonding agents, which may have the possibility of bonding with polyacrylic acid as a liquid ingredient of polycarboxylate and glass ionomer cements, were selected. All-Blond desensitizer containing NTG-GMA and BPDM, Scotch-Bond Multipurpose plus containing HEMA, and XR-bond containing organophosphate were selected as a coating agent. Dental cements were zinc phosphate, polycarboxylate, and glass ionomer cement. After the exposed dentin surface of premolars was ethced with 10% phosphoric acid and coated with resin bonding agents, the morphology of treated surfaces and the resin tags and hybrid layers on sectioned surfaces were observed by SEM. Shear bond strength between the resin bonding agents and 3 kinds of cements was measured 24 hours after bonding. On the debonded surfaces of the shear bond strength tested specimens, the cement tags and the bonding sites between the resin materials and cements were examined by SEM. Following conclusions were drawn : 1. Coating of dentin with resin bonding agents had no effect on the shear bond strength of zinc phosphate cement. 2. Both of polycarboxylate and glass ionomer cements showed the increased shear bond strength by the dentinal coating with Scotch-Bond Multipurpose plus containing HEMA. However, in the case of dentinal coating with some agents containing NTG-GMA and BPDM or organophosphate, polycarboxylate cement exhibited the lowered shear bond strength, and glass ionomer cement showed the unchanged shear bond strength. 3. Complete obstructions of dentinal tubules were observed on the dentin coated with All-Bond desensitizer or XR-bond, but distinct shape of the orifices of dentinal tubules was observed consistently on the dentin coated with Scotch-Bond Multipurpose plus. 4. The hybrid layer was thickest on the dentin coated with All-Bond desensitizer, and the length of resin tags was longest on the dentin coated with Scotch-Bond Multipurpose plus. 3. On the debonded specimens which had been bonded with polycarboxylate cement or glass ionomer cement after coating with Scotch-Bond Multipurpose plus, the cement tags and the bonding sites between the resinous surface and the cements could be examined.

• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.29 no.2
• /
• pp.153-161
• /
• 2004

This study investigated that the effect of rewetting agent on dentinal microtensile bond strength(${\mu}TBS$). Human molars were sectioned to expose the superficial dentin surfaces. Samples were divided into two groups according to type of adhesives-Single Bond (S) and One-Step (0)], and again subdivided into five groups by different dentin surface treatment-dry for 15s (D), blot dry (BD) or dry for 15s, and rewet with different rewetting agents [distilled water (DW), Gluma Desensitizer (GD) and Aqua-Prep (AP)] for 30s. After application of adhesive, composite resin was built up on the bonding surface. Each tooth was sectioned to obtain stick with $1\textrm{mm}^2$ cross sectional area and the ${\mu}TBS$ was determined by EZ test. In the S group, the mean ${\mu}TBS$ of GD, AP, and BD group was significantly higher than that of DW and D group (p < 0.05), In the O group, the mean, ${\mu}TBS$ of AP, GD, BD and DW group was significantly higher than that of D group (p < 0.05). The data suggested that Gluma Desensitizer and Aqua-Prep could be successfully used as rewetting agents, and Distilled water could be acceptable in aceton based adhesive system only.

• The korean journal of orthodontics
• /
• v.41 no.2
• /
• pp.121-126
• /
• 2011

Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate shear bond strength (SBS) and failure site location of brackets bonded to enamel with or without desensitizer application. Methods: Sixty-six freshly extracted human premolar teeth were randomly divided into 3 groups of 22. Group 1 served as the control. Desensitizer was applied to the remaining teeth at two time intervals (Group 2, bonded immediately after Pro-$Relief^{TM}$ (Colgate-Palmolive Co., New York, NY, USA) application and Group 3, bonded 30 days after Pro-$Relief^{TM}$ application with the teeth stored in artificial saliva during the 30 days). Orthodontic brackets were bonded with a light cure composite resin and cured with a halogen light. After bonding, the SBS of the brackets was tested using a universal testing device. Adhesive remnant index (ARI) scores were determined after the brackets failed. Data were analyzed with analysis of variance, Tukey's HSD, and G tests. Results: The SBS was significantly lower in Group 2 than in Groups 1 (p = 0.024) and 3 (p = 0.017). Groups 1 and Group 3 did not differ (p = 0.991). ARI scores did not differ significantly among groups. Conclusions: The Pro-$Relief^{TM}$ desensitizer agent applied immediately before bonding significantly reduces bond strength, but the SBS values still exceed the minimum 5.9 - 7.8 MPa required for adequate clinical performance. Immersing the teeth in artificial saliva for 30 days after applying the Pro-$Relief^{TM}$ desensitizer agent and before bonding increased the SBS to control levels.

• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.34 no.3
• /
• pp.223-231
• /
• 2009

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of a desensitizer on dentinal bond strength in cementation of composite resin inlay. Fifty four molar teeth were exposed the occlusal dentin. Class I inlay cavities were prepared and randomly divided into six groups. Control group: no agent, Group 1 : Isodan, Group 2 : One-step, Group 3 : All-Bond SE, Group 4 : Isodan + One-step, Group 5 : Isodan + All-Bond SE. Desensitizing agent and dentin bonding agents were applied immediately after the completion of the preparations. Impressions were then made. The composite resin inlays (Tescera, Bisco) were fabricated according to the manufacturers' guidelines. Cementation procedures followed a standard protocol by using resin cement (Bis-Cem, Bisco). Specimens were stored in distilled water at $37^{\circ}C$ for 24 hours. All specimens were sectioned to obtained sticks with $1.0{\times}1.0\;mm^2$ cross sectional area. The microtensile bond strength (${\mu}TBS$) was tested at crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. The data was analyzed using one way ANOVA and Tukey's test. Scanning electron microscopy analysis was made to examine the details of the bonding interface, 1. Group 1 showed significantly lower ${\mu}TBS$ than other groups (p<0.05). 2. There was no significant difference between the ${\mu}TBS$ of Group 3 and Group 5. 3. The ${\mu}TBS$ of Group 4 showed significantly lower than that of Group 2 (p<0.05). In conclusion, a desensitizer (Isodan) might have an adverse effect on the bond strength of composite resin inlay to dentin.

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.52 no.3
• /
• pp.165-176
• /
• 2014

Purpose: The effects of desensitizing agent are often for a short duration. One of the reasons is believed to be wear of desensitizing agent by tooth brushing. To reduce the wear and make the duration longer, dental bonding resin was applied and the changes of dentin permeability after toothbrushing were measured. Materials and methods: Extracted teeth free from caries were chosen. Coronal dentin discs with thickness of 1 mm were prepared. Using the split chamber device developed by Pashely, hydraulic conductance and scanning electron microscope images (SEM) were compared and contrasted before and immediately after the application of desensitizing agent and bonding resin and then after equivalent tooth brushing of 1 week, 2 weeks, and 6 weeks. Four commercially available desensitizing agents were used in this study; they were All-Bond 2, Seal & Protect, Gluma, and MS Coat. And Dentin/Enamel Bonding resin (Bisco Inc.) was used. The results of this study are as follows. Results: On all specimens, the hydraulic conductance decreased after the application of tooth desensitizing agent and bonding resin. Compared with the specimens treated only with desensitizer, the specimens treated with All-Bond 2, Gluma, MS Coat and plus D/E bonding resin had a little increase in hydraulic conductance after 1, 2 and 6-week tooth brushing. In case of Seal & Protect, the specimens showed the same result only after 6-week tooth brushing. On examination of SEM, the dentinal tubule diameter had decreased after treatment of desensitizing agents and bonding resin. And the specimens treated with All-Bond2, Seal&Protect, Gluma, MS Coat and plus D/E bonding resin had an significant decrease in diameter of dentinal tubule after 6-week tooth brushing. Conclusion: According to the results of this study, it is effective to use bonding resin after application of desensitizer in reducing the wear by tooth brushing and making the duration longer. In this study, just 6-week tooth brushing was performed, and it is not enough to regard it as a long-term data. So further study is needed and more perfect method for treating dentin hypersensitivity should be developed.

• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.35 no.5
• /
• pp.313-320
• /
• 2010

Objectives: The aim of this study was to examine changes in the dentinal fluid flow (DFF) during desensitizing agent application and to compare permeability after application among the agents. Materials and Methods: A Class 5 cavity was prepared to exposure cervical dentin on an extracted human premolar which was connected to a sub-nanoliter fluid flow measuring device (NFMD) under 20 cm water pressure. DFF was measured from before application of desensitizing agent (Seal&Protect, SP; SuperSeal, SS; BisBlock, BB; Gluma desensitizer, GL; Bi-Fluoride 12, BF) through application procedure to 5 min after application. Results: DFF rate after each desensitizing agent application was significantly reduced when compared to initial DFF rate before application (p < 0.05). SP showed a greater reduction in DFF rate than GL and BF did (p < 0.05). SS and BB showed a greater reduction in DFF rate than BF did (p < 0.05). Conclusions: Characteristic DFF aspect of each desensitizing agent was shown in NFMD during the application procedure.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.6 no.2
• /
• pp.88-95
• /
• 2014

PURPOSE. The purpose of this study is to evaluate if pre-treatment with desensitizers have a negative effect on microtensile bond strength before cementing a restoration using recently introduced self-adhesive resin cement to dentin. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Thirty-five human molars' occlusal surfaces were ground to expose dentin; and were randomly grouped as (n=5); 1) Gluma-(Glutaraldehyde/HEMA) 2) Aqua-Prep F-(Fluoride), 3) Bisblock-(Oxalate), 4) Cervitec Plus-(Clorhexidine), 5) Smart protect-(Triclosan), 6) Nd:YAG laser, 7) No treatment (control). After applying the selected agent, RelyX U200 self-adhesive resin cement was used to bond composite resin blocks to dentin. All groups were subjected to thermocycling for 1000 cycles between $5-55^{\circ}C$. Each bonded specimen was sectioned to microbars ($6mm{\times}1mm{\times}1mm$) (n=20). Specimens were submitted to microtensile bond strength test at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Levene's test, Kruskal-Wallis One-way Analysis of Variance, and Conover's nonparametric statistical analysis were used (P<.05). RESULTS. Gluma, Smart Protect and Nd:YAG laser treatments showed comparable microtensile bond strengths compared with the control group (P>.05). The microtensile bond strengths of Aqua-Prep F, and Cervitec Plus were similar to each other but significantly lower than the control group (P<.05). Bisblock showed the lowest microtensile bond strength among all groups (P<.001). Most groups showed adhesive failure. CONCLUSION. Within the limitation of this study, it is not recommended to use Aqua-prep F, Cervitec Plus and Bisblock on dentin when used with a self-adhesive resin cement due to the decrease they cause in bond strength. Beside, pre-treatment of dentin with Gluma, Smart protect, and Nd:YAG laser do not have a negative effect.