Evaluation of dentin hypersensitivity treatment with glass ionomer cements: A randomized clinical trial

Abstract

A randomized, double-blind, split-mouth clinical trial was performed compared the desensitizing efficacy of the resin-modified glass ionomer cement (GIC) ClinproTM XT (3M ESPE, Minnesota, USA) and the conventional GIC Vidrion R (SS White, Gloucester, UK) in a 6-month follow-up. Subjects were required to have at least two teeth with dentin hypersensitivity. Teeth were divided at random into 2 groups, one group received Clinpro XT and the other conventional GIC Vidrion R. Treatments were assessed by tactile and air blast tests using Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) at baseline, after 20 minutes, and at 7, 15, 21, 30, 90 and 180 days post-treatment. Twenty subjects (152 teeth) were included. Both tests (tactile and air blast) showed a significant reduction of dentin hypersensitivity immediately after the application of Vidrion R and Clinpro XT (20 min). VAS scores obtained along the 6-month follow-up were statistically lower when compared to initial rates (p < 0.05). Both GIC were able to reduce dentin hypersensitivity up to 6-month post-treatment period without statistically significant differences among them (p > 0.05). Both cements provided satisfactory results in long-term dental sensitivity reduction.

Effect of photo-polymerized versus chemical cured glass ionomer based desensitizing agents on patency of dentinal tubules

“…Although in our study it was found that RMGI even though the formation of a hybrid layer and the shallow penetration of resin tags inside the tubules were obvious, yet its inferior surface properties (hardness 12.4 Hv) and the value of coefficient of thermal expansion failed to withstand the challenges received (abrasion and thermocycling), while CGI performed better against thermocycling and abrasion which could be due to its higher surface properties (hardness 18.2 Hv). This agrees with Madruga et al (2017) (13) . Unlike Freitas et al (2011) (30) and Daniela et al (2002) (26) who disagreed as the physical properties of RMGI and CGI were compared and showed that RMGI has superior physical properties than CGI.…”

“…It can be concluded that the use of this model to determine surface characteristics and reductions in dentin permeability through tubule narrowing or occlusion, provides a useful screening method for evaluating potential desensitizing agents. (13) EDTA was chosen because the tested material was glass ionomer, so potent acids such as phosphoric or hydrochloric acids that could be used in acid etching for composite resins are not indicated for bonding of glass ionomer since they have acidic pH that do demineralization and not chelation, also it has been reported that presurface treatment of dentin with different agents rather than EDTA may cause alterations in the chemical and structural nature of dentin, which as a result may change its permeability and solubility characteristics. (14) EDTA effeciency is related to its ability to withdrawl the inorganic portion of the smear layer by reacting with the calcium ions in dentin to form soluble calcium chelates.…”

Hipersensibilidade Dentinária De Lesões Cervicais Não Cariosas: Comparação Entre O Gluma Desensitizer E Restaurações De Resina Composta – Relato De Caso / Dental Hypersensitivity of Non-Carious Cervical Injuries: Comparison Between Gluma Desensitizer and Composite Resin Restorations - Case Report

“…Agentes químicos ou físicos são utilizados para dessensibilizar o nervo ou obliterar os túbulos dentinários expostos (GARONE NETTO et al, 2003;AGUIAR et al, 2005;GARCIA et al, 2009;MATIAS et al, 2010;REBELO et al, 2011;SILVA et al, 2011;PANAGAKOS et al, 2016;MADRUGA et al, 2017). Dessensibilizantes dentinários resinosos, como Gluma Desensitizer ® , são materiais promissores no mercado para o tratamento da HD.…”

The Effect of Application of Forsterite Nanoparticles in Different Protocols on Permeability of Superficial and Deep Dentin

“…For both superficial and deep dentin discs after 1 week and after 4 weeks, glass ionomer had the lowest mean values, though it was expected that glass ionomer would exhibit better permeability reduction as glass ionomer forms chemical bonds with dentin via ionic and polar bonds and release and exchange of fluoride is facilitated by close molecular contact (52) . This may be explained by the fact that acid etching of dentin discs removed calcium ions which are essential for bonding glass ionomer with dentin surface, so this might have decreased its ability to bond to tooth structure and seal the dentinal tubules.…”