The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 22 , ISSUE 7 ( July, 2021 ) > List of Articles


Impact of Various Desensitizing Agents on Occlusion of Dentinal Tubules: A Scanning Electron Microscopic Study

Anupama Ahirwar, Tarun Nanu, K Binu Nathan, Jeslee A Jose

Keywords : Dentin hypersensitivity, Dentinal tubule, Desensitizing agents, Scanning electron microscope

Citation Information : Ahirwar A, Nanu T, Nathan KB, Jose JA. Impact of Various Desensitizing Agents on Occlusion of Dentinal Tubules: A Scanning Electron Microscopic Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2021; 22 (7):829-832.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3129

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 28-09-2021

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2021; The Author(s).


Aim: The aim of the present study was to compare the capacity of three dissimilar commercially accessible desensitizing products for the occlusion of dentinal tubules using a scanning electron microscope (SEM). Materials and methods: The nondiseased human mandibular premolar teeth, ninety in number, were amassed for this study. The blocks subsequently made were subjected to polishing using abrasive paper to facilitate dentinal surface exposure. The samples were randomly allocated to one of the following three groups: Group I, samples to be treated with Admira Protect; Group II, samples to be treated with MI paste, Group III, samples to be treated with Remin Pro. Photomicrograph of every sample was taken to evaluate the occlusion of the dentin tubule under 2000× magnification of the SEM. Results: MI paste exhibited the greatest dentin tubular occlusion with a value of 2.746 ± 0.530 followed by Admira Protect (3.498 ± 0.202) and Remin Pro (4.594 ± 0.364) in that order. Amid the various desensitizing materials used, statistically significant differences (p <0.001) were noted. Conclusion: Within the confines of the limitations of the present research, following a comparative assessment of the three desensitizing materials used, it can be concluded that all of them were efficient in sealing off the dentin tubules in spite of differing chemical constitutions and techniques of application. When compared with the agents, Admira Protect and Remin Pro, MI paste exhibited the maximum occluding capacity of the dentinal tubules. Clinical significance: A short, sharp shooting pain characterizes the frequent problem of dentin hypersensitivity (DH). Sealing off the open dentin tubules, thereby reducing dentinal permeability, is a known method in the treatment of DH. As several agents exist to reduce DH, the best commercially marketed product for decreasing this condition by occluding the tubules should be identified by the clinicians.

  1. Markowitz K, Pashley DH. Discovering new treatments for sensitive teeth: the long path from biology to therapy. J Oral Rehabil 2008;35(4):300–315. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2007.01798.x.
  2. Wang Z, Sa Y, Sauro S, et al. Effect of desensitising toothpastes on dentinal tubule occlusion: a dentine permeability measurement and SEM in vitro study. J Dent 2010;38(5):400–410. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2010.01.007.
  3. Mohammed Wasim Bari L, Sunil Kumar S, Datta Prasad S, et al. Scanning electron microscopic evaluation of the effectiveness of desensitizing agents on dentinal tubule occlusion and durability – an in vitro study. Acta Sci Dent Sci 2019;3(7):57–62. DOI: 10.31080/ASDS.2019.03.0570.
  4. Pinto SC, Pochapski MT, Wambier DS, et al. In vitro and in vivo analysis of desensitizing agents on dentin permeability and dentin tubule occlusion. J Oral Sci 2010;52(1):23–32. DOI: 10.2334/josnusd.52.23.
  5. Ghafournia M, Tehrani MH, Nekouei A, et al. In vitro evaluation of dentin tubule occlusion by three bioactive materials: a scanning electron microscopic study. Dent Res J (Isfahan) 2019;16(3):166–171.
  6. Chen CL, Parolia A, Pau A, et al. Comparative evaluation of the effectiveness of desensitizing agents in dentine tubule occlusion using scanning electron microscopy. Aust Dent J 2015;60(1):65–72. DOI: 10.1111/adj.12275.
  7. Paes Leme AF, dos Santos JC, Giannini M, et al. Occlusion of dentin tubules by desensitizing agents. Am J Dent 2004;17(5):368–372.
  8. Vieira AH, Santiago SL. Management of dentinal hypersensitivity. Gen Dent 2009;57(2):120–126.
  9. Pashley DH, Stewart FP, Galloway SE. Effects of air drying in vitro on human dentine permeability. Arch Oral Biol 1984;29(5):379–383. DOI: 10.1016/0003-9969(84)90164-x.
  10. Li Y, Lee S, Mateo LR, et al. Comparison of clinical efficacy of three professionally applied pastes on immediate and sustained reduction of dentinhypersensitivity. Compendium2013;34(1):e6–e12.
  11. Tang B, Millar BJ. Effect of chewing gum on tooth sensitivity following whitening. Br Dent J 2010;208(12):571–577. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2010.500.
  12. Martinez-Mier EA. Casein phosphopeptide used in toothpaste suggests an efficacy similar to toothpaste containing sodium monofluorophosphate for caries prevention. J Evid Based Dent Pract 2010;10(3):154–155. DOI: 10.1016/j.jebdp.2010.06.003.
  13. Soares R, De Ataide IDN, Fernandes M, et al. Assessment of enamel remineralisation after treatment with four different remineralising agents: a Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) study. J Clin diagnostic Res 2017;11(4):ZC136–ZC141. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2017/23594.9758.
  14. Malkoç MA, Sevimay M. Evaluation of mineral content of dentin treated with desensitizing agents and neodymium yttrium-aluminium-garnet (Nd: YAG) laser. Lasers Med Sci 2012;27(4):743–748. DOI: 10.1007/s10103-011-0954-6.
  15. Torres CR, Silva TM, Fonseca BM, et al. The effect of three desensitizing agents on dentin hypersensitivity: a randomized, split-mouth clinical trial. Oper Dent 2014;39(5):E186–E194. DOI: 10.2341/13-057.
  16. Pereira JC, Martineli AC, Tung MS. Replica of human dentin treated with different desensitizing agents: a methodological SEM study in vitro. Braz Dent J 2002;13(2):75–85. DOI: 10.1590/s0103-64402002000200001.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.