Effect of two desensitizing agents on dentin permeability in vitro

Abstract Objective The aim of this in vitro study was to investigate the effect of two desensitizing agents and water on hydraulic conductance in human dentin. Material and Methods GLUMA Desensitizer PowerGel (GLU) contains glutaraldehyde (GA) and 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA), and Teethmate Desensitizer (TD) is a powder comprising tetracalcium phosphate (TTCP) and dicalcium phosphate anhydrous (DCPA) that is mixed with water. Deionized water was used as a negative control (CTR). Thirty discs with a thickness of 1.2 mm were cut from the coronal dentin of the third molars and cleaned with 0.5 M EDTA (pH 7.4). After being mounted in a split-chamber device, the discs were pressurized with water at 1 kPa and 3 kPa in order to measure flow rates with a highly sensitive micro-flow sensor and to calculate hydraulic conductance as a baseline value (BL). Following the application of GLU, TD, and CTR (n=10), hydraulic conductance was remeasured with intermittent storage in water after 15 min, 1 d, 1 w, and 1 m. Reduction in permeability (PR%) was calculated from hydraulic conductance. Data were statistically analyzed using nonparametric methods (α<0.05). Representative discs were inspected by SEM. Results PR% for GLU and TD were 30-50% 15 min and 1 m after their application. Post hoc tests indicated that PR% of CTR was significantly greater than those of GLU and TD at all time points tested. The PR% of GLU and TD were not significantly different. SEM examinations showed noncollapsed collagen meshes at the tubular entrances after GLU, and crystalline precipitates occluding the tubular orifices after TD, whereas CTR specimens showed typical patterns of etched dentin. Conclusions The present study on hydraulic conductance in dentin discs treated with two chemically different desensitizing agents and water as a control demonstrated that both products may be characterized as effective.

In vitro dentin permeability after application of Gluma® desensitizer as aqueous solution or aqueous fumed silica dispersion

OBJECTIVES: To assess and to compare the effects of Gluma® Desensitizer (GDL) with an experimental glutaraldehyde and HEMA containing fumed silica dispersion (GDG) on dentin permeability using a chemiluminous tracer penetration test. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty disc-shaped dentin specimens were dissected from extracted human third molars. The dentin specimens were mounted in a split chamber device for determination of permeability under liquid pressure using a photochemical method. Ten specimens were randomly selected and allocated to the evaluation groups Gluma® Desensitizer as aqueous solution and glutaraldehyde/HEMA as fumed silica dispersion, respectively. Dentin disc permeability was determined at two pressure levels after removal of smear with EDTA, after albumin soaking, and after application of the desensitizing agents. Two desensitizer-treated and rinsed specimens of each group were examined by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) for surface remnants. RESULTS: Comparatively large standard deviations of the mean EDTA reference and albumin soaked samples permeability values refected the differences of the dentin substrates. The mean chemiluminescence values of specimen treated with GDL and GDG, respectively, were signifcantly reduced after topical application of the desensitizing agents on albumin-soaked dentin. The effects of GDL and GDG on permeability were not signifcantly different. Treated specimens showed no surface remnants after rinsing. CONCLUSIONS: The experimental desensitizer gel formulation reduced dentin permeability as effectively as the original Gluma® Desensitizer solution.