Keywords :
Class I cavity, Postoperative sensitivity, Restorative material, Visual analog scale
Citation Information :
Mushtaq U, Mushtaq F, Thakur D, Rathee K, Poonia N, Khullar S. Comparative Evaluation of Postoperative Sensitivity Following Restoration of Class I Lesions with Different Restorative Materials: An In Vivo Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2021; 22 (6):650-654.
Aim and objective: This study was undertaken to compare postoperative sensitivity in posterior class I restorations using etch-and-rinse and self-etch composite resins, GC Fuji IX, and Cention-N.
Materials and methods: The sample size consisted of 160 participants. After clinical and radiographic examination, the participants were randomly assigned to four groups consisting of 40 participants each according to the restorative materials used. Class I cavity was prepared and was restored on each patient and after restoration postoperative sensitivity was evaluated at 24 h, 48 h, and 7 days using the visual analog scale (VAS). The results were tabulated and statistically analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and post-hoc multiple comparison tests.
Results: There were significant differences present between the groups at 24 h, 48 h, and 7 days. We found that the materials causing least postoperative sensitivity are ranked according to superiority as GC Fuji IX > nano-hybrid composite using self-etch adhesive > Cention-N > nano-hybrid composite using etch-and-rinse adhesive.
Conclusion: Both GC Fuji IX and self-etch adhesive showed less postoperative sensitivity as compared to etch-and-rinse and Cention-N at 24 h. With GC Fuji IX and self-etch adhesive postoperative sensitivity was decreased while Cention-N also showed good results at 48 h and 7 days. Etch-and-rinse adhesive showed maximum postoperative sensitivity as compared to other groups at 24 h, 48 h, and 7 days.
Clinical significance: Teeth restored with resin composites are susceptible to sensitivity. The restorative material used and their handling can influence postoperative sensitivity.
Nahlawi TA, Altaki Z, Abbood D. Post-operative sensitivity of class I, II amalgam and composite resin restoration: clinical evaluation in an undergraduate program. Int Dent Med J Adv Res 2015;1(1):1–4. DOI: 10.15713/ins.idmjar.17.
Six N, Lasfargues JJ, Goldberg M. In vivo study of pulp reaction to Fuji IX, a glass ionomer cement. J Dent 2000;28(6):413–422. DOI: 10.1016/s0300-5712(00)00015-4.
Diwanji A, Dhar V, Arora R, et al. Comparative evaluation of microleakage of three restorative glass ionomer cements: an in vitro study. J Nat Sci Biol Med 2014;5(2):373–377. DOI: 10.4103/0976-9668.136193.
Hegde MN, Vyapaka P, Shetty S. A comparative evaluation of microleakage of three different newer direct composite resins using a self-etching primer in class V cavities: an in-vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2009;12(4):160–163. DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.58340.
Costa TR, Rezende M, Sakamoto A, et al. Influence of adhesive type and placement technique on postoperative sensitivity in posterior composite restorations. Oper Dent 2017;42(2):143–154. DOI: 10.2341/16-010-C.
Yassini E, Kermanshah H, Mirzaei M, et al. Effect of mechanical load cycling on class V glass-ionomer and composite restorations; a microleakage and scanning electron microscopic evaluation. J Isl Dent Assoc Iran 2012;24(3):69–78.
Singla T, Pandit IK, Srivastava N, et al. An evaluation of microleakage of various glass ionomer based restorative materials in deciduous and permanent teeth: an in vitro study. Saudi Dent J 2012;24(1):35–42. DOI: 10.1016/j.sdentj.2011.10.002.
Scientific Documentation Cention N. Product overview. Available from: www.ivoclarvivadent.in/en-in/p/all/centoin-n. [Last accessed on 25/10/17].
Strober B, Keenan AV, Barna JA, et al. Effectiveness of a resin-modified glass ionomer liner in reducing hypersensitivity in posterior restorations: a study from the practitioners engaged in applied research and learning network. J Am Dent Assoc 2013;144(8):886–897. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2013.0206.
Ayar MK. Postoperative sensitivity after placement of bulk-fill posterior restoration. J Res Med Dent Sci 2017;5(53):53–58. DOI: 10.24896/jrmds.2017539.
Raju VG, Venumbaka NR, Mungara J, et al. Comparative evaluation of shear bond strength and microleakage of tricalcium silicate based restorative material and radioopaque posterior glass ionomer restorative cement in primary and permanent teeth: an in vitro study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2014;32(4):304–310. DOI: 10.4103/0970-4388.140952.
Al-Omari WM, Al-Omari QD, Omar R. Effect of cavity disinfection on postoperative sensitivity associated with amalgam restorations. Oper Dent 2006;31(2):165–170. DOI: 10.2341/05-8.
Auschill TM, Koch CA, Wolkewitz M, et al. Occurrence and causing stimuli of postoperative sensitivity in composite restorations. Oper Dent 2009;34(1):3–10. DOI: 10.2341/08-7.
Gordan V, Mjor IA. Short- and long-term clinical evaluation of post-operative sensitivity of a new resin-based restorative material and self-etching primer. Oper Dent 2002;27(6):543–548.
Masih S, Thomas AM, Koshy G, et al. Comparative evaluation of the microleakage of two modified glass ionomer cements on primary molars. An in vivo study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2011;29(2):135–139. DOI: 10.4103/0970-4388.84686.
Samanta S, Das UK, Mitra A. Comparison of microleakage in class V cavity restored with flowable composite resin, glass ionomer cement and cention N. Imp J Interdiscip Res 2017;3(8):180–183.
Burgess J. Clinical evaluation of an amalgam replacement dental filling material: 6-month recall. 2016. USA. Scientific documentation Cention N; May 2015. Available from: www.ivoclarvivadent.in/en-in/p/all/centoin-n. [Last accessed on 26/02/19].
