The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  25 (2024)
Volume  24 (2023)
Volume  23 (2022)
Volume  22 (2021)
Volume  21 (2020)
Volume  20 (2019)
Volume  19 (2018)
Volume  18 (2017)
Volume  17 (2016)
Volume  16 (2015)
Volume  15 (2014)
Volume  14 (2013)
Volume  13 (2012)
Volume  12 (2011)
Volume  11 (2010)
Volume  10 (2009)
Volume  9 (2008)
Volume  8 (2007)
Volume  7 (2006)
Volume  6 (2005)
Volume  5 (2004)
Volume  4 (2003)
Volume  3 (2002)
Volume  2 (2001)
Volume  1 (1999)
Related articles

VOLUME 14 , ISSUE 5 ( September-October, 2013 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Effectiveness of Desensitizing Agents in relieving the Pre- and Postcementation Sensitivity for Full Coverage Restorations: A Clinical Evaluation

Naveen Gupta, Upendra Natha Reddy, P Leela Vasundhar, K Sita Ramarao, KVV Pratap Varma, V Vinod

Citation Information : Gupta N, Reddy UN, Vasundhar PL, Ramarao KS, Varma KP, Vinod V. Effectiveness of Desensitizing Agents in relieving the Pre- and Postcementation Sensitivity for Full Coverage Restorations: A Clinical Evaluation. J Contemp Dent Pract 2013; 14 (5):858-865.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1416

Published Online: 01-02-2014

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2013; The Author(s).


Abstract

Materials and methods

This study consisted of 30 patients requiring either full coverage restoration or 3 unit fixed partial denture. Total of 40 restorations (n = 40) were made and were randomly assigned into four groups comprising 10 restoration (n = 10) in each group. Group C control where no desensitizer application was done, group BB applied with BisBlock dentin desensitizer (Bisco Inc.), group ST applied with Systemp desensitizer (Ivoclar Vivadent), group GC applied with GC Tooth Mousse desensitizer (GC Asia). Desensitizer application was done immediately after the tooth preparation. Sensitivity of the tested abutment was determined by the patient response to cold, hot and bite stimuli and were recorded on visual analog scale (VAS). Sensitivity level scores was evaluated at 4 time intervals, i.e. 1 week after desensitizer application at baseline precementation appointment and others at 5 minutes, 1 day and 1 week postcementation appointment. VAS score data was statistically analyzed using one-way ANOVA followed by post hoc Tukey's test.

Results

BisBlock and GC Tooth Mousse desensitizer resulted in statistically significant (p < 0.01) reduction in postcementation sensitivity of glass ionomer cement in comparison to Systemp desensitizer at 5 minutes, 1 week postcementation time interval with no statistical difference was seen between all desensitizer groups at 1 day postcementation. Application of BisBlock and GC Tooth Mousse desensitizer resulted in highly significant (p < 0.01) reduction in sensitivity level at the end of 1 week.

Clinical significance

Desensitizer's application on the prepared abutment teeth is considerably effective in relieving both pre- and postcementation sensitivity for full coverage restoration over the short duration of time. Immediate reduction in postoperative sensitivity relatively in a short time period may be beneficial in terms of patient's comfort. Nonetheless, multicenter long-term clinical trials should be conducted to confirm the results.

Conclusion

Efficacy of BisBlock and GC Tooth Mousse desensitizer was more in relieving the postcementation sensitivity of glass ionomer cement at various time intervals in comparison to Systemp desensitizer. In conclusion, application of desensitizers was beneficial to reduce the pre- and postcementation abutment sensitivity.

How to cite this article

Gupta N, Reddy UN, Vasundhar PL, Ramarao KS, Varma KVVP, Vinod V. Effectiveness of Desensitizing Agents in relieving the Pre- and Postcementation Sensitivity for Full Coverage Restorations: A Clinical Evaluation. J Contemp Dent Pract 2013;14(5):858-865.

PDF Share
  1. Performance of a glass ionomer luting cement over 5 years in a general practice. J Prosthet Dent 1992;67:59-61.
  2. Evaluation and control of postcementation pulpal sensitivity: zinc phosphate and glass ionomer luting cements. J Am Dent Assoc 1993;124:39-46.
  3. Swift EJ, Bolden AJ. A National survey on the use of glass-ionomer cements. Oper Dent 1993;18:56-60.
  4. Ten year's clinical evaluation of three luting cements. J Dent 1996;24(5):309-315.
  5. Pulpal evaluation of teeth restored with fixed prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 1992;67:323-325.
  6. The effect of dentine desiccation and aspirated odontoblast on the pulp. J Prosthet Dent 1968;20:165-171.
  7. In vivo disintegration of luting cements. J Am Dent Assoc 1987;114:489-492.
  8. Acidity of glass ionomer cements during setting and its relation to pulp sensitivity. J Am Dent Assoc 1986;112:654-657.
  9. Council on Dental Materials, Instruments and Equipment. J Am Dent Assoc 1984;109:476.
  10. Movement of glass ionomer cement through human dentine during crown cementation in vitro. J Dent Res 1990;15:934.
  11. Reducing the risk of sensitivity and pulpal complications after the placement of crowns and fixed partial dentures. Quintessence Int 1996;27:673-678.
  12. Crown cementation and pulpal health. Int Endod J 1999;32:249-256.
  13. Evaluation of the desensitizing effect of Gluma dentin bond on teeth prepared for complete-coverage restorations. Int J Prosthodont 1991;4:292-298.
  14. The effects of desensitizing bonding system for prevention of vital abutment hypersensitivity. Hau Xi Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi 2005;23(2):130-132.
  15. Glass ionomer as a luting material. J Am Dent Assoc 1990;120:59-62.
  16. Pulpal effects of glass ionomer cement. Int Endod J 1984;17:51-59.
  17. Smear layer physiological considerations. Oper Dent 1984;(suppl 3):13-29.
  18. Dentin permeability: effects of crown preparation. Int J Prosthodont 1991;4:219-225.
  19. The effect of dentine surface treatment on pulpward pressure transmission during crown cementation: a laboratory study. Int Dent J 1998;8:196.
  20. Guidelines for the design and conduct of clinical trials on dentine hypersensitivity. J Clin Periodontol 1997;24:808-813.
  21. A randomized clinical trial of agents to reduce sensitivity after crown cementation. Gen Dent 1998;71:68-74.
  22. Comparison of using calcium hydroxide or a dentine primer for reducing dentinal pain following crown preparation: a randomized clinical trail with an observation time up to 30 months. J Oral Rehabil 2004;31:344-350.
  23. Narhi M. Testing sensitive dentine in man. Int Endod J 1993;26:4.
  24. A split-mouth placebo-controlled study to determine the effect of amorphous calcium phosphate in the treatment of dentine hypersensitivity. J Clin Periodontol 1998;25:687-692.
  25. The clinical effect of amorphous calcium phosphate (ACP) on root surface hypersensitivity. Oper Dent 2003;28(5):496-500.
  26. The effectiveness of Systemp desensitizer in the treatment of dentine hypersensitivity. Prim Dent Care 2004;11(3):71-76.
  27. Validity, reliability and responsiveness in the assessment of pain. Physiotherapy Theory and Practice 1997;13:23-37.
  28. Closing of dentinal tubules by glutardialdehyde treatment, a scanning electron microscopy study. Scand J Dent Res 1994;102:144-150.
  29. Clinical evaluation of the role of glutaraldehyde in a one-bottle adhesive. Am J Dent 2002;15:330-334.
  30. Closing of dentinal tubules by Gluma desensitizer. Eur J Oral Sci 1997;105:414-421.
  31. Inhibition of bacterial growth under composite restorations following Gluma pretreatment. J Dent Res 1989;68(3):491-495.
  32. The effects of oxalate treatment on the smear layer of ground surfaces of human dentine. Archs Oral Biol 1985;30(10):731-737.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.