ABSTRACT
Abstract Objective This study aimed to evaluate whether the use of desensitizing dentifrices containing obliterating agents can affect bond strength of eroded/abraded dentin. Methodology A total of 100 dentin samples were obtained from human molars. The teeth were cut into 3 mm-thickness discs and allocated in five groups (n=20), according to the toothpaste used: WoF - abrasion with fluoride-free toothpaste (Cocoricó); Arg - toothpaste containing arginine (Colgate Sensitive Pro-Relief); Nov - calcium sodium phosphosilicate toothpaste (Sensodyne Repair and Protect); SnF - fluoride-containing toothpaste (AmF/SnCl2/SnF2 - Elmex Erosion); and Control (no erosive/abrasive process). The erosive/abrasive cycle consisted of immersion in citric acid (1%, pH 2.6, 5 min, 4×/day) and abrasion (2×/day, 120-20 sec abrasion, 100 sec immersion) with each toothpaste. During intervals, samples were immersed in artificial saliva. This cycle was performed for five days. Two resin cylinders (2 mm in diameter) were constructed on each sample for the shear bond strength test using a universal adhesive system. The self-etch and etch-and-rinse (Scotchbond Universal) strategies were employed, each in half of the total sample (n=10). Bond strength (MPa) was measured in a shear test and failure modes were assessed with a stereomicroscope. Statistical analysis was performed using the two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey tests (p<0.05). Results A statistically significant difference was found between the adhesive strategies tested (p<0.001), with the self-etching form showing higher values than the etch-and-rinse. Moreover, no significant differences were observed between the tested toothpastes (p=0.750) and interactions (p=0.438). Conclusion The use of toothpaste containing obliterating agents does not affect bond strength to dentin subjected to erosive/abrasive conditions when a universal adhesive is used. However, the self-etch strategy might be preferred for eroded/abraded dentin.
ABSTRACT
Context: Dentin desensitizers are used for in‑office treatment of dentinal hypersensitivity. They block the open tubules and bring about a reduction in hypersensitivity. Aim: The aim was to evaluate and compare the clinical effectiveness of a dentin desensitizer, a combination of a dentin desensitizer + adhesive and one‑bottle self‑etching adhesive for in‑office treatment of dentin hypersensitivity. Settings and Design: Institutional, prospective double-blind parallel clinical design. Subjects and Methods: A total of 54 teeth in 20 patients were randomly allocated to one of the three study groups, with 18 teeth in each group as follows: Group A‑Gluma Desensitizer (GD), Group B‑Gluma Comfort Bond + Desensitizer (GCBD), Group C‑Single Bond Universal (SBU). The patients’ dentinal hypersensitivity scores for tactile (hand‑held scratch device), thermal (cold), and evaporative (dental unit air syringe) stimuli were recorded on a visual analog scale. The parameters were recorded at baseline, immediately after application of the agent, 3‑ and 6‑week posttreatment. Statistical Analysis Used: The data were analyzed with Friedman’s test, Wilcoxon signed ranks test, Kruskal–Wallis test, and Mann–Whitney‑U‑test (P < 0.05). Results: All three groups showed a significant reduction in dentinal hypersensitivity (P < 0.05) compared to baseline at all time intervals. Statistically, significant differences were noted between GD and SBU; between GCBD and SBU in all testing parameters. Between GD and GCBD no significant difference was noted. Conclusions: GD and GCBD showed a greater reduction in dentin hypersensitivity than SBU.