• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.32 no.2
• /
• pp.181-194
• /
• 1994

The purpose of this study was to compare the retention and fitness of crown treated with various desensitizing agents on natural teeth. Varnish, dentin primer, bonding agent and potassium oxalate treated groups and control group with no treatment were used. The retention test was executed with the Instron test machine(Instron Co.,U.S.A.) on 24 hours after cementation with zinc phosphate cement. After retention test, the teeth and crowns were washed and recemented. The cemented crowns were embedded in clear resin and sectioned with a diamond saw. The occlusal and marginal fitnesses, were measured indirectly with a stereomicroscopic photographs. The result of this study were obtained as follows : 1. The retention of control group was higher than any other desensitizing agent treated group. 2. The differences of retention among varnish, dentin primer, bonding agent and potassium oxalate treated groups were not statistically significant. 3. There were no statistically significant difference in fitness at occlusal surface and margin among control, varnish, dentin primer, bonding agent and potassium oxalate treated groups. According to these results, desensitizing agents used to protect the pulp from irritation of luting agents may adversely affect the retention of castings. Therefore, desensitizing agents should be used in limited areas carefully.

• 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.

• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.20 no.2
• /
• pp.508-526
• /
• 1995

This experiment was performed to study mechanisms of desensitization by chemical desensitizing agents in hypersensitive dentin and compare effects of these agents by measuring the activity of intradental nerves and observing their occluding aspects on dentinal tubules with SEM over time after application of chemical desensitizing agents to the exposed dentinal surfaces. Canines of adult cats weighing 2-3 kg were cross-sectioned at 1.5 mm from incisal apex, and the smear layer of the exposed dentinal susface was removed by 32 % $H_3PO_4$ for 15 sec. Chemical desensitizing agents such as 10% $SrCl_2$, 5% $KNO_3$ and 30% $K_2C_2O_4$, were applied to the exposed dentin surfaces for 2 minutes. Intradental nerve activity was measured immediately after application of the agents, at 15 minutes and at 30 minutes by stimulating with 4M NaCl. To compare occluding ability of desensitizing agents on dentinal tubules in vivo and in vitro, the structures of the exposed dentinal surfaces of nonvital and vital teeth were morphologically observed by SEM. The results obtained were as follows : 1. Intradental nerve activity was decreased immediately after the application of 10 % $SrCl_2$, 5% $KNO_3$ and 30% $K_2C_2O_4$. (p<0.01), among which 30% $K_2C_2O_4$. showed the highest desensitizing effect(p<0.01). 2. The immediately decreased intradental nerve activity after application of 10 % $SrCl_2$ and 5% $KNO_3$ was increased over time. 10% $SrCl_2$ and 5% $KNO_3$ showed no desensitizing effect respectively at 30 minutes and at 15 minutes after application. 3. The immediately decreased intradental nerve activity after application of 30 % $K_2C_2O_4$ was persistently continued during the period of observation (p<0.01). 4. Precipitates of $SrCl_2$ and $KNO_3$ were not noted on the exposed dentinal surfaces and within dentinal tubules by SEM examination. On the other hand, 30 % $K_2C_2O_4$ produced precipitates on the exposed dentinal surfaces and openings of dentinal tubules without any formed preciptates within dentinal tubules. 5. Ten percent $SrCl_2$, 5 % $KNO_3$ and 30 % $K_2C_2O_4$ showed no differences in their occluding aspects on dentinal tubules either in vivo or in vitro studies and either immediately following application or at 30 minutes. These results suggest that the desensitizing effect of $SrCl_2$ and $KNO_3$ is resulted from their reducing effect on the intradental nerve activity rather than from their precipitates' occluding the dentinal tubules. However, desensitizing effect of 30 % $K_2C_2O_4$, is probably resulted from its precipitates' occluding the openings of the dentinal tubules as well as from it's reducing effect on the intradental nerve actibity.

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.39 no.2
• /
• pp.208-219
• /
• 2001

To study the effect of dentin permeability on a tooth with wear from tooth brushing after application of desensitizing agent, extracted teeth free from caries were chosen. Coronal dentin discs with thickness of 1mm were prepared. Using the split chamber device developed by Pashely, hydraulic conductance, scanning electron microscope images(SEM) and atomic force microscope images(AFM) were compared and contrasted before and immediately after the application of desensitizing agent and after equivalent tooth brushing of 1 week, 2 weeks, and 6 weeks. Four commercially available desensitizing agents were used in this study ; they were Gluma, Seal & Protect, All-Bond 2 and MS Coat. The results of this study are as follows. 1. On all specimens, the hydraulic conductance decreased after the application of tooth desensitizing agent. 2. Except the specimens treated with MS Coat, the remaining specimens had an increase in dentin permeability after tooth brushing for 1 and 2 weeks but a decrease after 6 weeks. 3. The specimens treated with MS Coat had statistically significant increase in the dentin permeability regardless with the duration of tooth brushing. 4. On examination of SEM and AFM, the dentinal tubule diameter had decreased after treatment of desensitizing agents. The specimens other than those treated with MS Coat, smear layers were noted after tooth brushing. It is not always consistant but the hydraulic conductance correlated with the images from SEM and AFM.

• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.24 no.2
• /
• pp.322-329
• /
• 1999

The hydrodynamic theory of dentin sensitivity states that movement of tubular contents or tubular fluid, in either direction of dentinal tubule, causes dentin sensitivity. A corollary of that theory is that anything that can decrease dentinal fluid movement or dentin permeability should decrease dentin sensitivity. A wide variety of physicochemical methods have been used to reduce the permeability and sensitivity of exposed dentin. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the ability of 4 kinds of clinical desensitizing agents(2% NaF, 30% Potassium oxalate, MS Coat$^{(R)}$, Tubulitec system$^{(R)}$) to reduce the rate of fluid flow through dentin in vitro. Sixty coronal dentin discs, 1mm in thickness, were prepared from extracted third molars, free from decay and wear. Dentin discs were treated with 3% EDTA(Tubulicid Plus$^{(R)}$(Dental Therapeutics AB, Sweden)) to remove the smear layer and debris occluding the tubular orifices. After placing the discs in a split chamber device, the rate at which physiologic saline solution could filter across dentin under 150cm $H_2O$ hydrostatic pressure was measured. The occlusal side of the discs were then treated with MS Coat$^{(R)}$, 2% NaF, Tubulitec system$^{(R)}$, and 30% Potassium oxalate, and the filter ratio of the saline solution was measured again. The following conclusions were drawn : 1. Hydraulic conductance which was measured after the application of desensitizing agents was decreased in all the groups(p<0.05). 2. % change of hydraulic conductance was compared but no significant difference was found among the four desensitizing agents(p>0.05). 2% NaF, 30% Potassium oxalate, MS Coat$^{(R)}$ and Tubulitec system$^{(R)}$ decreased the permeability of dentin. It is considered that above four agents can be used in treating the hypersensitive teeth.

• Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science
• /
• v.35 no.4
• /
• pp.991-1002
• /
• 2005

The purpose of this study was to compare the effect of desensitizing agents applied on hypersensitive root surface following periodontal treatment. This study included 21 subjects(168 vital teeth). To evaluate dentin sensitivity, three clinical tests(tactile, air stream, cold water) were tried and three different densensitizing agents(MS coat, Elmex gel. Superseal) were individually applied. After application, reassessment was done at 1 minute, 1 week, 1 month and 3 months. The results were as follows : 1. The degree of dentin sensitivity was measured highly in the sequence of cold water, air stream and tactile and significantly decreased in all four groups with lapse of time(p<0.05). 2. There was no significant difference between all four groups in the tactile test with lapse of time. 3. There was no significant difference between three experimental groups in the air stream test with lapse of time. however, one minute later, it was measured highly in the sequence of Superseal, MS coat and Elmex 4. There was no significant difference between three experimental groups in the cold water test with lapse of time. As a result of this study, all of three agents were significantly effective in reducing dentin hypersensitivity and these agents could be positively employed to patients complaining of dentin hypersensitivity following periodontal treatment.

• 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.

• The Journal of the Korean dental association
• /
• v.46 no.11
• /
• pp.683-688
• /
• 2008

Purpose : The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical efficacy of two commercially available desensitizing agents over 3 weeks on patients with dentin hypersensitivity. Materials and Methods : An oxalate-based solution, Sensblok (NIBEC Inc. Seoul, Korea) & Superseal (Pheonix Inc. Michigan, USA), and a distilled water placebo were compared in a clinical setting. Seven volunteers exhibiting three or more teeth that were sensitive to tactile & air were enrolled in the study (35 teeth total). A visual analog scale (VAS) was used for recording each patient s level of sensitivity to tactile & air stimuli. A Florida probe was rubbed across the exposed dentin three times with a constant pressure 20 grams to measure the tactile stimulus. The air stimulus was generated by dental unit air syringe for 1-second blast from 1/2 inch distance. The desensitizing agents were applied according manufacture s guideline. VAS scores were recorded at baseline, 1 minute after treatment, at 1 week, 2weeks, 3weeks. VAS score were analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA ( =0.05). Results : The Sensblok, Superseal, and distilled water placebo all decreased dentin sensitivity. A statistically significant difference existed between Sensblok and placebo when tactile stimulus was applied (P<0.05), but no significant difference was found among other desensitizing agents and tactile and air stimuli.

• 대한치과보철학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 2001.11a
• /
• pp.46-46
• /
• 2001

• 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.