Clinical evaluation of two desensitizing agents for use under Class 5 silver amalgam restorations

Schwartz, Richard S.; Conn, Linc J.; Haveman, Carl W

doi:10.1016/s0022-3913(98)70126-x

Cited by 7 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The results of this study also agree with previous findings, inasmuch as the degree of postoperative pain decreasing with time (Gordan & others, 1999b;Browning & others, 1997;Schwartz, Conn & Haveman, 1998). The proportion of those reporting postoperative sensitivity reduced steadily from 43% at 2 days, to 26% at 7 days, to 8% at 30 days and none at 90 days.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Effect of Cavity Disinfection on Postoperative Sensitivity Associated with Amalgam Restorations

Al-Omari

Alomari

Omar

2006

Operative Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYThis clinical study assessed the postoperative cold sensitivity reported by patients following the Class I and Class II amalgam restoration of primary carious lesions after different cavity treatments. One hundred and twenty patients, each with a previously untreated tooth requiring an amalgam restoration due to the presence of a carious lesion, were included. Sixty teeth had lesions that were radiographically judged to be located in the middle third of dentin, and another 60 were located in the inner third of dentin. Six different cavity treatment regimens were used: Group 1-no treatment; Group 2-calcium hydroxide liner (Life); Group 3-cavity varnish (Copalite); Group 4-resin modified glass ionomer liner (Vitrebond); Group 5-dentin adhesive resin liner (Single Bond); Group 6-chlorhexidine disinfectant (Consepsis). Patients were telephoned on days 2 and 7 postoperatively and asked whether they experienced sensitivity to cold, and if so, its duration and intensity. If sensitivity remained up to day 7, patients were also contacted on days 30 and 90. The KruskalWallis test showed postoperative sensitivity to be significantly different among cavity treatments at days 2, 7 and 30 (p=0.026, 0.044, 0.015, respectively). Lesion depth also affected postoperative sensitivity at day 2, with 27% of teeth with middle-third lesions producing pain, and 58% of those with lesions extending to the inner third producing pain (p=0.000). This difference showed up at 7 and 30 days (p=0.001, 0.015, respectively). Of the 51 teeth with sensitivity at day 2, 17 had mild pain, 26 were moderately painful and 8 had severe pain; each category reduced in degree of sensitivity and number with time. It would seem that medium-term (beyond 30 days) postoperative sensitivity is affected neither by the method of cavity treatment nor the depth of lesion,

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Effect of Cavity Disinfection on Postoperative Sensitivity Associated with Amalgam Restorations

Al-Omari

Alomari

Omar

2006

Operative Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The results of this study support the use of amalgam restorations lined with adhesive materials shows less postoperative sensitivity to cold. [3][4][5][6][7][8] Although these materials seal the dentinal tubules, they might not be a suitable thermal insulator due to their thickness. 10 This project investigated a self etching adhesive Amalgam restorations with and without copal varnish liners have a long history of clinical success, and the long-term success of adhesive systems lined amalgam restorations will depend on additional clinical data.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the first version "Copalite" was marked on the upper right, "Adper Prompt liner found Dentin Bloc liner more effective than Copalite in reducing short-term postoperative sensitivity. 5 A short-term clinical assessment by Gordon 6 concluded Scotchbond MP and Copalite under amalgam restorations following treatment of primary class I and II carious lesions exhibited initial sensitivity which lasted up to 30 days. Gordon 7 also showed there was no correlation between different dentin treatments with cavity depths in respect to tooth sensitivity.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Hajizadeh

Akbari²,

Ghavamnasiri³

et al. 2008

The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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). Abstract © Seer PublishingConclusion: 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.

show abstract

“…There were six studies with relevant comparison groups. 3,[17][18][19] Data for the following comparisons were available:…”

Section: Comparing Amalgam Restorations With Different Liners and Basmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…1 The microleakage from the tooth and restoration interface has been reported as a potential contributing factor towards some of the problematic symptoms experienced by patients following placement of amalgam restorations, for example postoperative sensitivity. 2,3 Therefore, some dentists recommend using liners between the amalgam and dental tissue. In this review, we intend to evaluate the available evidence for the effectiveness of different dental liners placed under amalgam restorations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evidence summary: which dental liners under amalgam restorations are more effective in reducing postoperative sensitivity?

Nasser

2011

Br Dent J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since August 2009, members of the Primary Care Dentistry Research Forum (www.dentistryresearch.org) have taken part in an online vote to identify questions in day-to-day practice that they felt most needed to be answered with conclusive research. The question that receives the most votes each month forms the subject of a critical appraisal of the relevant literature. Each month a new round of voting takes place to decide which further questions will be reviewed. Dental practitioners and dental care professionals are encouraged to take part in the voting and submit their own questions to be included in the vote by joining the website. The paper below details a summary of the findings of the ninth critical appraisal. In order to address the question raised by dentistry research forum, first a search was conducted for systematic reviews on the topic. There was one systematic review retrieved comparing bonded amalgam restorations versus non-bonded amalgam restorations. However, there was no other systematic review identified assessing the effectiveness of dental liners under amalgam restorations in general. Therefore, a search was conducted for any randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing use of a lining under amalgam restorations versus no lining or RCTs comparing differing lining materials under amalgam against each other. There were eight relevant RCTs identified. Due to the low quality, small sample sizes or lack of adequate reporting of the outcome data, the evidence is inadequate to claim or refute a difference in postoperative sensitivity between different dental liners. Further well-conducted RCTs are needed to answer this question. These RCTs would be preferably included and synthesised in a systematic review.

show abstract

Clinical evaluation of two desensitizing agents for use under Class 5 silver amalgam restorations

Cited by 7 publications

References 16 publications

Effect of Cavity Disinfection on Postoperative Sensitivity Associated with Amalgam Restorations

Effect of Cavity Disinfection on Postoperative Sensitivity Associated with Amalgam Restorations

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

Evidence summary: which dental liners under amalgam restorations are more effective in reducing postoperative sensitivity?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About