The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 9 , ISSUE 7 ( November, 2008 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Clinical Evaluation of a Resin-based Desensitizing Agent and Self-etching Adhesive on Reduction of Postoperative Sensitivity of Amalgam Restorations

Majid Akbari, Marjaneh Ghavamnasiri, Hila Hajizadeh, Sara Abedini

Citation Information : Akbari M, Ghavamnasiri M, Hajizadeh H, Abedini S. Clinical Evaluation of a Resin-based Desensitizing Agent and Self-etching Adhesive on Reduction of Postoperative Sensitivity of Amalgam Restorations. J Contemp Dent Pract 2008; 9 (7):9-16.

DOI: 10.5005/jcdp-9-7-9

License: CC BY-NC 3.0

Published Online: 01-11-2008

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2008; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim

The aim of this randomized, double blind clinical trial was to compare three lining materials (Adper Prompt L-Pop, VivaSens, and Copalite) versus unlined restorations on postoperative cold sensitivity of class I amalgam restorations.

Methods and Materials

Potential subjects were screened for the presence of four initial class I carious lesions on posterior teeth. Each tooth was assigned to treatments according to a randomized block design. After cavity preparation, teeth were lined with either VivaSens, Adper Prompt L-Pop, or Copalite, and one tooth remained unlined and served as a control. The cavities were filled with high copper amalgam (Oralloy). The time taken for a subject to respond to a standardized cold stimulus (CRM) was recorded at baseline, 24 hours, one week, and one month after treatment. Participants filled out a self-report questionnaire at each time point. Data was gathered by analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Duncan Multiple Comparisons tests (α=0.05).

Results

Twenty subjects participated in this study. Comparisons within each group found no significant reduction in mean CRM for the Adper Prompt L-Pop group (P>0.05), but a significant difference in mean CRM for the VivaSens group was observed at one week and one month intervals after restoration (P<0.05). Copalite and the unlined groups showed significant mean CRM reductions after one day (P<0.05). No significant differences between groups receiving Adper Prompt L-Pop and Copalite were found at any time point (P>0.05). VivaSens showed more cold sensitivity than Adper Prompt L-Pop at one week and one month recalls (P<0.05), while the most cold sensitivity was found in the unlined group.

Conclusion

Adper Prompt L-Pop and Copalite reduced postoperative sensitivity to cold more than VivaSens and unlined groups at all assessment time points, 24 hours, one week, and one-month post treatment. The subjects receiving Copalite, VivaSens, and unlined restorations experienced greater sensitivity to cold at one month compared to baseline, while subjects receiving the Adper Prompt L-Pop liner experienced no greater sensitivity to cold from baseline to one month.

Clinical Significance

Adper Prompt L-Pop as a liner under spherical high copper amalgam successfully reduced cold postoperative sensitivity.

Citation

Hajizadeh H, Akbari M, Ghavamnasiri M, Abedini S. Clinical Evaluation of a Resin-based Desensitizing Agent and Self-etching Adhesive on Reduction of Postoperative Sensitivity of Amalgam Restorations. J Contemp Dent Pract 2008 November; (9)7:009-016.


PDF Share
  1. Microleakage in bonded amalgam restorations using different adhesive materials. Braz Dent J 2004 15(1):13-8.
  2. Clinical evaluation of amalgam bonding in Class I and II restorations. J Am Dent Assoc 2000 Jan;131(1):43-9.
  3. Reduction of postoperative pain: a double-blind, randomized clinical trial. J Am Dent Assoc 1997 Dec;128(12):1661-7.
  4. Postoperative pain following bonded amalgam restorations. Oper Dent 1997 Mar;22(2):66-71.
  5. , Haveman CW. Clinical evaluation of two desensitizing agents for use under Class 5 silver amalgam restorations. J Prosthet Dent 1998 Sep;80(3):269-73.
  6. Effect of different liner treatments on postoperative sensitivity of amalgam restorations. Quintessence Int 1999 Jan;30(1):55-9.
  7. Amalgam restorations: postoperative sensitivity as a function of liner treatment and cavity depth. Oper Dent 1999 Nov;24(6):377-83.
  8. Short-term clinical evaluation of postoperative sensitivity with bonded amalgams. Am J Dent 1998 Aug;11(4):177-80.
  9. Effect of cavity disinfection on postoperative sensitivity associated with amalgam restorations. Oper Dent 2006 Mar;31(2):165-70.
  10. Sturdevant's Art and Science of Operative Dentistry. 5 ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 2006. p. 311.
  11. Microleakage of Class II posterior composite restorations with gingival margins placed entirely within dentin. J Can Dent Assoc 2007 Apr;73(3):255.
  12. One-year clinical performance of a self-etching adhesive in class V resin composites cured by two methods. Oper Dent 2002 May;27(3):218-22.
  13. Microleakage of new all-in-one adhesive systems on dentinal and enamel margins. Quintessence Int 2002 Feb;33(2):136-9.
  14. A comparison of amalgam microleakage with a 4-META liner and copal varnish. Int J Prosthodont 1995 Sep;8(5):461-6.
  15. Efficiency and cytotoxicity of resin-based desensitizing agents. Am J Dent 2002 Oct;15(5):300-4.
  16. Influence of bleaching agents and desensitizing varnishes on the water content of dentin. Oper Dent 2006 Sep;31(5):536-42.
  17. Sensitivity answers sought in amalgam alloy microleakage study. J Am Dent Assoc 1994 Mar;125(3):282-8.
  18. All factors related to the microleakage of amalgam alloys (abstract 1494). J Dent Res 1997;76:200.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.