• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.8 no.5
• /
• pp.404-410
• /
• 2016

PURPOSE. Considering the importance of retention in the success and long-term clinical service of fixed partial dentures (FPDs) as well as the existing controversy regarding the effect of GLUMA desensitizer on the retention of full metal crowns cemented with RelyX U200 self-adhesive cement, this study aimed to assess the effect of GLUMA desensitizer on the retention of full metal crowns cemented using RelyX U200. MATERIALS AND METHODS. In this experimental study, 20 sound human premolars were prepared; a 0.5 mm chamfer finish line was prepared above the cementoenamel junction. The teeth were randomly assigned to two groups: a desensitizer group (n = 10, treated with GLUMA desensitizer) and a control (n = 10, no surface treatment). Full metal crowns were fabricated of base metal alloy and had a ring. All crowns were cemented with RelyX U200 and subjected to retention test by using a universal testing machine. The data were analyzed using SPSS version 20 and independent t-test. RESULTS. The mean tensile bond strength was significantly higher in the GLUMA desensitizer group ($230.63{\pm}63.8N$) compared to the control group ($164.45{\pm}39.3N$) ($P{\leq}.012$). CONCLUSION. GLUMA desensitizer increases the tensile bond strength of RelyX U200 self-adhesive cement to dentin.

• 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 Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.40 no.4
• /
• pp.335-343
• /
• 2002

This study investigated the effect of temporary cement and desensitizer on the bond strength of luting cements. Total 96 dentin specimens were divided into two groups with and without temporary cementation. For temporary cement-tread group, specimens were cemented with $Temp-bond^{(R)}$ and all specimens were stored in distilled water at $37^{\circ}C$ for 7 days. Each cup was further divided into 3 subgroups with $Gluma^{(R)},\;One-step^{(R)}$ application and without desensitizer After desensitizer application, Ni-Cr specimens were luted to dentin surface with $Panavia-F^{(R)}$ and $Vitremer^{(R)}$ Specimens were placed in distilled water at $37^{\circ}C$ for 24 hours and shear bond strength between metal and dentin was measured by a universal testing machine. The results were as follows : 1. In $Panavia-F^{(R)}$ cemented groups, the combination of $One-step^{(R)}$ without temporary cement showed the greatest strength. Among the desensitizer types, $One-step^{(R)}$ showed the highest bond strength, followed by No-desensitizer, $Gluma^{(R)}$. 2. In $Vitremer^{(R)}$ cemented groups, the combination of no temporary cement and without desensitizer showed the greatest bond strength. Among the desensitizer types, No-desensitizer group showed the highest bond strength. 3. The use of $Gluma^{(R)}$ significantly reduced the shear bond strength in $Panavia-F^{(R)}$ and $Vitremer^{(R)}$ groups. 4. All temporary cement-treated groups showed a significant lower shear bond strength than without temporary cement groups. 5. Desensitizer application significantly influenced the bond strength of the resin cement and resin modified glass ionomer cement.

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.40 no.4
• /
• pp.365-373
• /
• 2002

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of desensitizer on shear bond strength of adhesive resin cements for all ceramic crown. For this study, Gluma $desensitizer^{(R)}$(Heraeus Kulzer, Germany) and MS $Coat^{(R)}$(Sun medical, Japan) were used as desensitizer, and Bistite $II^{(R)}$ resin cement(Tokuyama, Japan) and Variolink $II^{(R)}$ resin cement (Ivoclar, Liechtenstein) were used. IPS Empress ceramics were bonded to dentin surfaces after application of desensitizer and shear bond strength of specimens were measured using UTM(Zwick 1456 41. Zwick, Germany) at a crosshead speed of 1mm/min. The obtained results were as follows : 1. The shear bond strength of both resin cements were not affected by Gluma $desensitizer^{(R)}$ containing HEMA 2. The shear bond strength of Bistite $II^{(R)}$ resin cement was significantly decreased by MS $Coat^{(R)}$. 3. The failure mode in MS $Coat^{(R)}-Bistite \;II^{(R)}$ group was mainly adhesive type between dentin and resin cement. but that of Gluma $desensitizer^{(R)}$-Variolink $II^{(R)}$ group was mainly mixed type, combined adhesive failures between dentin and resin cement or porcelain and resin cement.

• Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science
• /
• v.32 no.3
• /
• pp.655-664
• /
• 2002

The purpose of this study was to observe the degree of surface obliteration of dentinal tubule using Gluma(R) desensitizer and MS coat(R) with 15 specimens made out of 15 extracted lower incisors. They were divided into Root planning group(control), Gluma(R) desensitizer group(test I ) and MS coat(R) group(test II). Degree of Obliteration was examined under the scanning electron microscope(${\times}$2000). The following results were obtained: 1. In the root planning group(control), the complete open of dentinal tubule surface was accounted for 73.8%, the partial obliteration for 17.2% and the complete obliteration for 9.0%. 2. In the Gluma(R) desensitizer group (test I), the complete open of dentinal tubule surface was accounted for 23.6%, the partial obliteration for 42.8% and the complete obliteration for 33.6%. 3. In the MS coat(R) group (test II), the complete open of dentinal tubule surface was accounted for 19.2%, the partial obliteration for 45.6% and the complete obliteration for 35.2%. 4. The average number of open dentinal tubules in the control was significantly higher than in the test I and II (P<0.05), but there were no statistically significant differences between the test I and II. 5. The average number of the partially obliterated and the completely blocked dentinal tubules in the control was significantly lower than the test I and II(P<0.05), but there were no statistically significant differences between the test I and II. The results of this study suggest that Gluma(R) desensitizer and MS coat(R) is significantly effective on dentinal tubule obliteration, therefore they were effective on hypersensitivity caused by periodontal treatment

• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.21 no.2
• /
• pp.505-516
• /
• 1996

The effects of application of dentin desensitizer containing glutaraldehyde (Gluma Desensitizer) and dentin adhesive system (All Bond 2) to the exposed dentin on the intradental nerve activity (INA) and the occluding aspects of dentinal tubules were investigated in cat canine teeth. Single pulp nerve units were dissected from the inferior alveolar nerve and indentified as $A{\delta}$-fiber units. The INAs elicited by 4M NaCl before and after the application of each experimental agent were compared. The morphological changes of exposed dentin surfaces and dentinal tubules in the dentin specimens used to record INAs were observed by SEM. The results obtained were as follows. 1. Eight $A{\delta}$-fiber units (conduction velocity: $8.0{\pm}4.0m$/sec) were identified. 4M NaCl evoked an irregular burst of action potentials which ceased immediately after washing. 2. In 4 $A{\delta}$-fiber units, the change of INA after the application of Gluma Desensitizer was $133.9{\pm}80.7%$ when it was compared with the INA before the application of the same agent. 3. In 4 $A{\delta}$-fiber units, application of All Bond 2 completely abolished the INA induced by 4M NaCl. 4. In specimens applied with Gluma Desensitizer, the formation of hybrid layer as well as the identification of resin penetration and reaction products with proteins in dentinal tubules were not clearly observed in interface between dentin and adhesive resin. In specimens applied with All Bond 2, the gap width of 2-$3{\mu}m$ was formed between exposed dentin and adhesive resin, and the hybrid layer and resin tags were not clearly formed either.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.6 no.3
• /
• pp.165-170
• /
• 2014

PURPOSE. This study was aimed to evaluate effect of the desensitizing pretreatments on the micro-tensile bond strengths (${\mu}TBS$) to eroded dentin and sound dentin. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Forty-two extracted molars were prepared to form a flat dentin surface, and then they were divided into two groups. Group I was stored in distilled water while group II was subjected to a pH cycling. Each group was then subdivided into three subgroups according to desensitizing pretreatment used: a) pretreatment with desensitizer (Gluma); b) pretreatment with $CO_2$ Laser (Ultra Dream Pluse); c) without any pretreatment. All prepared surfaces were bonded with Single Bond 2 and built up with resin composite (Filtek Z250). The micro-tensile bond test was performed. Fracture modes were evaluated by stereomicroscopy. Pretreated surfaces and bonded interfaces were characterized by scanning electron microscope (SEM). The data obtained was analyzed by two-way ANOVA (${\alpha}$=0.05). RESULTS. For both sound and eroded dentin, samples treated with desensitizer showed the greatest ${\mu}TBS$, followed by samples without any treatment. And samples treated with $CO_2$ laser showed the lowest ${\mu}TBS$. SEM study indicated that teeth with eroded dentin appeared prone to debonding, as demonstrated by existence of large gaps between adhesive layers and dentin. CONCLUSION. Pretreatment with Gluma increased the ${\mu}TBS$ of Single Bond 2 for eroded and sound teeth. $CO_2$ laser irradiation weakened bond performance for sound teeth but had no effect on eroded teeth.

• 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.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.

• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.42 no.3
• /
• pp.168-175
• /
• 2017

Objectives: This double-blind randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial evaluated the ability of a desensitizing agent and a self-etch adhesive on cervical dentin sensitivity (CDS) after periodontal surgery. Materials and Methods: Ninety hypersensitive teeth of 13 subjects were included in the study. After periodontal surgery, the teeth of each posterior sextant treated with one of the following materials: G1: Clearfil $S^3$ Bond (Kuraray Dental), G2: Gluma Desensitizer (Heraeus Kulzer), and G3: placebo (water). The sensitivity was assessed using evaporative stimuli before treatment (baseline, T0), 1 day after treatment (T1), after 1 week (T2), and 1 month (T3) according to visual analog scale (VAS). Results: Following the treatment, all the 3 groups showed significant reduction of CDS in T1 compared to T0. Reduction of CDS between T1 and T2 was observed only in G1 but there was no significant difference between T2 and T3 in this group. Although we observed a significant difference in T3 compared to T1 and T2 in G2 and G3, comparison of treatment groups in each assessment time showed a significant difference only in T3. According to paired comparison, this was due to the difference between G2 and G3. Conclusions: Dentin sensitivity following periodontal surgery will decrease spontaneously over time, but treating the sensitive teeth with Gluma Desensitizer and Clearfil $S^3$ Bond can have some benefits.