Comparison of the effect of propolis and Gluma desensitizer on the management of dentin hypersensitivity: A randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect of propolis and gluma desensitisers on the management of dentin hypersensitivity. METHODS: The single-blind, randomised controlled trial was conducted at the Department of Operative Dentistry, Dr Ishrat ul Ebad Khan Institute of Oral Health Sciences, Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi, from October 2020 to September 2021, and comprised patients with dentin hypersensitivity who had pain scores of at least 2 on the visual analogue scale. The teeth were randomised into propolis group A and Gluma group B. Baseline pain scores were assessed using visual analogue scale and Schiff's sensitivity scores and compared with scores immediately after the intervention, and then after one week and one month of the intervention. Data was analysed using SPSS 23. RESULTS: Of the 22 patients, 12(54.5%) were females and 10(45.4%) were males. Of the 80 teeth, there were 40(50%) in each of the 2 groups. Significant reduction was observed in dentin hypersensitivity immediately after the application of the desensitising agents (p<0.05). However, after one month, Gluma was more effective than propolis (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Both Gluma and propolis were found to be effective desensitising agents, but the effectiveness of propolis decreased over one month. Clinical Trial Number: Clinical Trials.gov: NCT04819867.

Comparison of gingival biotype in smokeless tobacco users (Gutka and Paan) and non-tobacco users.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the gingival biotypes in smokeless tobacco (Gutka and Paan) users and compare it with non-tobacco users in Karachi sub-population using trans-gingival probing method (TRAN). METHODS: This in-vivo, cross sectional study was conducted in the department of Operative Dentistry from 20th February 2019 to 25th June 2019 Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi after obtaining ethical approval from the Institutional review board of DUHS (Ref: IRB-1207/DUHS/Approval/2019/21). A total of 70 participants, 35 subjects currently using smokeless tobacco (Gutka and Paan) and 35 non-tobacco users from both genders were included in the study after taking informed consent. Gingival biotype was recorded using probe transparency method. Probing of the gingival sulcus was performed at the mid-buccal aspect of both maxillary incisors. Depending on the visibility of the underlying probe gingiva was categorized as thin or thick. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences in gingival biotype was observed of both groups (p=0.005). Males were recorded with a higher percentage of thick gingiva in both groups (81% in smokeless tobacco and 65% in non-tobacco) while in females thick gingiva was more prevalent in smokeless tobacco group (85.7%) whereas thin gingiva was noted in non-tobacco group (66.7%); although the results between genders was statistically insignificant. The comparison between different age groups, genders and both groups was statistically insignificant. CONCLUSIONS: Significant difference was observed between gingival biotype of smokeless tobacco and non-tobacco user groups. No statistically significant results were observed between genders and age groups.

Erosive Potential of 1% Phytic Acid on Radicular Dentine at Different Time Intervals.

Objective: The objective of this in-vitro study was to compare the erosive potential and smear layer removal ability of 1% Phytic acid (IP6) and 17% Ethylenediaminetetaacetic acid (EDTA). Methods: Canal preparation of 225 single rooted extracted human teeth was performed with Protaper NiTi rotary instruments. Teeth were divided into three groups according to the final irrigation protocol. Group 1: Saline irrigation (n=75), Group 2: 17% EDTA (n=75), Group 3: 1% Phytic Acid (n=75). Roots were splitted and observed under Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) for erosion and smear layer removal. Mean differences between the groups for smear layer removal and erosion were assessed using the Kruskal Wallis and Mann Whitney U test. (P≤0.05) Friedman and Willcoxon Signed Rank tests were used to make comparisons within the groups. Results: Group 3 was significantly less erosive than Group 2 at all root portions (P<0.001). With regards to smear layer removal, group 2 (EDTA) removed more smear layer compared to group 3 (Phytic acid) at all root portions (P<0.001). Both 17% EDTA and 1% IP6 removed significantly less smear layer in the apical root portion. Intra group comparisons revealed no significant differences at any root level. There was a time dependent increase in erosion and smear layer removal in Group 2, with severe erosion at 5 minutes time interval. In Group 3, however, there was moderate erosion and smear removal at 3 and 5 minutes interval. Conclusion: IP6 at the concentration of 1% and pH 3 was less erosive than 17% EDTA. It exhibited moderate smear layer removal ability.

Audiovisual Distraction: A Pricking Pain Reduction Modality among Ladies Receiving Intraoral Injections.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of audiovisual distraction (AVD) using virtual reality device (bobo VRZ4-VRBOX) on intensity of pricking pain at the intraoral injection site among different age groups in ladies. STUDY DESIGN: Experimental study. PLACE AND DURATION OF STUDY: Department of Operative Dentistry, Dr. Ishrat-ul-Ebad Khan Institute of Oral Health Sciences, Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi, during September 2018 to March 2019. METHODOLOGY: An in-vivo interventional study, using split-mouth technique was conducted in 50 lady patients of sample size of 50, to investigate pricking pain perception during needle insertion. Topical anesthesia (benzocaine gel) was applied on left side (control) for 1 minute without audiovisual distraction (AVD); whereas, on the experimental side (right), similar methodology was followed after topical anesthesia but with AVD via VR-Z4 video eyeglasses after the local anesthesia was administered. Patients' pain perception ratings were measured through visual analog scale (VAS). After profound anesthesia was achieved, restorative treatment was performed under rubber dam isolation. RESULTS: Audiovisual (AV) device was effective in decreasing the pricking pain sensed by the patients during infiltrate anesthesia; but the score remained within the same pain category. The effect of audiovisual distraction (AVD) using virtual reality device (VRZ4-VRBOX) was statistically insignificant on intensity of pricking pain at the intraoral injection site among different age groups in ladies. CONCLUSION: AV device is not dependent on age (21-50 years) in reducing the pricking pain. Pain is effectively reduced after the use of AV device, but this reduction is not statistically significant.

Effect of different tetra pack juices on microhardness of direct tooth colored-restorative materials.

PURPOSE: To examine the effect of apple and orange juices on the surface hardness of direct tooth-colored restorative materials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The materials included resin-modified glass ionomer cement (Vitremer 3M™ ESPE™ Core buildup restorative) and composite resin (Filtek™ 3M™ ESPE™ Z350). A total of 45 disks of each restorative material were prepared. The disks were divided into groups of 15, which were immersed for 7 days in deionized water (G1/G4, control group), apple juice (G2/G5), or orange juice (G3/G6). The pH of the apple juice was approximately 4.8 and the pH of the orange juice was approximately 4.9. Surface hardness tests were performed before immersion and at various times following immersion. Statistical analysis included two-way ANOVA with repeated measurement and Tukey's test. RESULTS: Exposure to juices significantly reduced the hardness of both materials (p < 0.05), while deionized water did not affect the surface hardness of either material. The ionomer cement experienced a greater reduction than the composite resin (p = 0.000). There was no significant difference in the effect of apple and orange juices. CONCLUSION: Juice box-type fruit juices reduced the hardness of direct tooth-colored restorative materials. Material selection should be considered when planning restorations in patients who have experienced tooth surface loss. In terms of the materials evaluated in this study, the composite material provides greater durability under acidic conditions.

Effectiveness of commonly available surface protecting agents in maintaining microhardness of two cements.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the microhardness of glass ionomer cement (vitrofil) and resin modified glass ionomer cement (vitremere) in the presence and absence of different surface protections. STUDY DESIGN: An in-vitro experimental study. PLACE AND DURATION OF STUDY: The Department of Operative Dentistry, Dr. Ishrat-ul-Ebad Khan Institute of Oral Health Sciences, Dow University of Health Sciences and the Department of Material Sciences, NED University, Karachi, from August 2011 to January 2012. METHODOLOGY: Seventy-two discs of each material were made in polytetrafluoroethylene mold which was 10 mm in diameter and 2 mm in thickness. Four groups were made for each material containing 18 discs; G1/G5 (control group), G2/G6 (solid petroleum jelly), G3/G7 vernal (resin varnish), G4/G8 (nail varnish). After initial setting reaction surface protection was applied to discs. Once the surface protection was dried, discs were stored in deionized water at 37°C for 24 hours. After 24 hours, the discs were polished. Microhardness test were performed in digital microhardness tester. The results were statistically analyzed with the help of two-way ANOVA. RESULTS: For glass ionomer cement the only G4 (nail varnish) differed from the G1 (control group) [p < 0.05], No significant difference was seen with other surface protection agents. For resin modified glass ionomer cement, the G7 (resin varnish) and G8 (nail varnish) gave better result from the G5 (control group). CONCLUSION: Nail varnish and resin varnish showed better surface protection for GIC and RMGIC. The presence of toluene in nail varnish have harmful effects so should not be preferred if resin varnish is available.