An evaluation of smear layer with various desensitizing agents after tooth preparation

Zaimoğlu, Ali; Aydin, A. Kevser

doi:10.1016/0022-3913(92)90409-4

Cited by 13 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…15 Furthermore, any agent that blocks the tubules reduces fluid flow, thereby reducing hypersensitivity. 19 Thus, T3's results may reflect the effect of the gel on dentin permeability and nervous excitability, and the restorative technique could block the dentin fluid flow with the composite acting as a mechanical barrier against thermal stimuli. 20 In the case of T4, the latter effect can be hypothesized.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dentin hypersensitivity treatment of non-carious cervical lesions – a single-blind, split-mouth study

Neto

et al. 2015

Braz. oral res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aims to compare the in vivo effect of a desensitizing therapy associated with a restorative technique for the treatment of cervical dentin hypersensitivity (CDH) in non-carious lesions. The sample consisted of 68 teeth with moderate or severe dentin hypersensitivity in 17 individuals (one tooth per quadrant). The sensitivity levels of the teeth were scored, and the teeth were randomly distributed into four groups: T1 -desensitizing gel applied once per week until remission of pain; T2 -desensitizing gel applied once per week followed immediately by restoration with resin composite (Filtek Z250, 3M Espe); T3 -desensitizing gel once per week until remission of pain and then restoration with resin composite; and T4 -restoration with resin composite. Dentin hypersensitivity was assessed at 0, 7, 30, 90 and 180 days. The Kruskal-Wallis, Wilcoxon and Mann-Whitney (p < 0.05) tests were used to compare the treatments. The mean baseline CDH scores were T1 -2.41, T2 -2.41, T3 -2.47, and T4 -2.70 (p > 0.05). At seven and 180 days, the mean CDH scores were as follows: T1 -1.47/0.65, T2 -1.35/0.71, T3 -0.71/0.53, and T4 -1.12/0.59, all of which were significantly lower (p < 0.001) than the baseline scores. The scores at 30, 90 and 180 days were not significantly different when compared to the score of the previous period. At 180 days, CDH scores were similar among groups (p > 0.05). Teeth with moderate or severe hypersensitivity that required a filling responded similarly regardless of whether the desensitizing procedure was carried out prior to the filling.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dentin hypersensitivity treatment of non-carious cervical lesions – a single-blind, split-mouth study

Neto

et al. 2015

Braz. oral res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The restorations luted with cements like zinc phosphate and glass ionomer result in partial removal of the smear layer owing to their acidic nature 5. The cement can displace an equal amount of dentinal fluid, which may cause excessive hydrostatic pressure leading to post-cementation sensitivity.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of effect of desensitizing agents on the retention of crowns cemented with luting agents: anin vitrostudy

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PURPOSE.Many dentists use desensitizing agents to prevent hypersensitivity. This study compared and evaluated the effect of two desensitizing agents on the retention of cast crowns when cemented with various luting agents. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Ninety freshly extracted human molars were prepared with flat occlusal surface, 6 degree taper and approximately 4 mm axial length. The prepared specimens were divided into 3 groups and each group is further divided into 3 subgroups. Desensitizing agents used were GC Tooth Mousse and GLUMA � desensitizer. Cementing agents used were zinc phosphate, glass ionomer and resin modified glass ionomer cement. Individual crowns with loop were made from base metal alloy. Desensitizing agents were applied before cementation of crowns except for control group. Under tensional force the crowns were removed using an automated universal testing machine. Statistical analysis included oneway ANOVA followed by Turkey-Kramer post hoc test at a preset alpha of 0.05. RESULTS. Resin modified glass ionomer cement exhibited the highest retentive strength and all dentin treatments resulted in significantly different retentive values (In Kg.): GLUMA (49.02 ± 3.32) > Control (48.61 ± 3.54) > Tooth mousse (48.34 ± 2.94). Retentive strength for glass ionomer cement were GLUMA (41.14 ± 2.42) > Tooth mousse (40.32 ± 3.89) > Control (39.09 ± 2.80). For zinc phosphate cement the retentive strength were lowest GLUMA (27.92 ± 3.20) > Control (27.69 ± 3.39) > Tooth mousse (25.27 ± 4.60). CONCLUSION. The use of GLUMA � desensitizer has no effect on crown retention. GC Tooth Mousse does not affect the retentive ability of glass ionomer and resin modified glass ionomer cement, but it decreases the retentive ability of zinc phosphate cement. Dentistry, Dr. D.Y. Patil Dental College & Hospital, Pimpri, Pune-18, India Tel. 91 997 0744140: e-mail, shitalsonune@yahoo.com Received September 22, 2011 / Last Revison June 28, 2012 / Accepted July 5, 2012 http://dx.doi.org/10. 4047/jap.2012.4.3.127 ORIGINAL ARTICLE J Adv Prosthodont 2012;4:127-33The geometric form of the prepared tooth and the casting mainly determines the retention of the prosthesis, but the clinical success of the restoration also depends on the integrity and the mode of attachment of the intervening cement layer. 6 The various cementing media ranging from the traditional ones like zinc phosphate cement to the newer resin-based luting cements have different modes of attachment to the casting and the tooth surface. A myriad of combinations of desensitizers and luting cements are available today to the dental clinician. The available literature offers inconsistent statistics on the effect when using various desensitizing agents with luting cements like zinc phosphate, glass ionomer and resin-modified glass ionomer.The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of two commercially available desensitizing agents, GC tooth Mousse and GLUMA � Desensitizer, on the retentive ability of three luting agents namely zinc phosphate, glass ionomer an...

show abstract

“…Sealing of the dentin tubules also reduces sensitivity (Cagidiaco & others) 5 by preventing hydraulic fluid flow within the dentin tubules, which is associated with post-operative sensitivity (Brännström; Suzuki, Cox & White; Pashley & others). [44][45][46] It has been shown that cements can be forced into dentin tubules before the luting agent sets (Zaimoglu & Aydin) 47 and microorganisms and their by-products can penetrate into the patent dental tubules post-operatively (Lundy & Stanley; Nagaoka & others). 42,48 Therefore, the early sealing of dentin tubules also may prevent occlusion of dental tubules by PLA remnants and prevent eugenol diffusion across dentin, which may later inhibit polymerization of the bonding agents (Bertschinger & others).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of Previous Provisional Cementation on the Bond Strength Between Two Definitive Resin-based Luting and Dentin Bonding Agents and Human Dentin

Erkut

Küçükeşmen²,

Eminkahyagil³

et al. 2007

Operative Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Clinical RelevanceBased on in vitro results in extracted teeth, the dual bonding method used was effective in restoring the shear bond strength values that decreased after applying provisional luting agent regardless of the composition of the provisional luting agent (eugenol-based or eugenolfree) used. SUMMARYThis study evaluated the effect of two different types of provisional luting agents (RelyX Temp E, eugenol-based; RelyX Temp NE, eugenol-free) on the shear bond strengths between human dentin and two different resin-based luting systems (RelyX ARC-Single Bond and Duo Link-One Step) after cementation with two different techniques (dual bonding and conventional technique). One hundred human molars were trimmed parallel to the original long axis, to expose flat dentin surfaces, and were divided into three groups. After related surface treatments for each specimen, the resin-based luting agent was applied in a silicone cylindrical mold (3.5 x 4 mm), placed on the bonding-agent-treated dentin surfaces and polymerized. In the control group (n=20), the specimens were further divided into two groups (n=10), and two different resin-based luting systems were immediately applied following the manufacturer's protocols: RelyX ARC-Single Bond (Group I C ) and Duo Link-One Step (Group II C). In the provisionalization group (n=40), the specimens were further divided into four subgroups of 10 specimens each (Group I N, I E and Group II N, II E). In Groups I N and II N, eugenolfree (RelyX NE), and in groups I E and II E, eugenol-based (RelyX E) provisional luting Operative Dentistry, 2007, 32-1, 84-93 agents (PLA), were applied on the dentin surface. The dentin surfaces were cleaned with a flourfree pumice, and the resin-based luting systems RelyX ARC (Group I N and E) and Duo Link (Group II N and E) were applied. In the Dual bonding groups (n=40), the specimens were divided into four subgroups of 10 specimens each (Group I ND, ED and Group II ND, ED). The specimens were treated with Single Bond (Groups I ND and ED) or One Step (Groups II ND and ED). After the dentin bonding agent treatment, RelyX Temp NE was applied to Groups I ND and II ND, and RelyX Temp E was applied to Groups I ED and II ED. The dentin surfaces were then cleaned as described in the provisionalization group, and the resin-based luting systems were applied: RelyX ARC-Single Bond (Group I ND and ED) and Duo Link-One Step (Group II ND and ED). After 1,000 thermal cycles between 5°C and 55°C, shear bond testing was conducted at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/minutes. One-way ANOVA, followed by a post hoc Tukey test (α α=0.05) was done. The dentin-resin-based luting system interfaces were evaluated under a scanning electron microscope. There was a significant reduction in the mean shear bond strength values of groups subjected to the provisionalization compared to the control and dual bonding technique groups (p<0.05). The composition of provisional luting did not create a significant difference with regard to reducing shear bond strength values (p>0.05). Wi...

show abstract

An evaluation of smear layer with various desensitizing agents after tooth preparation

Cited by 13 publications

References 12 publications

Dentin hypersensitivity treatment of non-carious cervical lesions – a single-blind, split-mouth study

Dentin hypersensitivity treatment of non-carious cervical lesions – a single-blind, split-mouth study

Comparison of effect of desensitizing agents on the retention of crowns cemented with luting agents: anin vitrostudy

Influence of Previous Provisional Cementation on the Bond Strength Between Two Definitive Resin-based Luting and Dentin Bonding Agents and Human Dentin

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About