Dens invaginatus occurs as a result of the invagination of the enamel organ. These cases may present difficulties with respect to its diagnosis and treatment because of canal morphology. It frequently leads to caries, pulpal, and periodontal involvement with necrosis and loss of attachment. The knowledge of classification and anatomical variations of teeth with dens invaginatus are of great importance for correct treatment. This article presents two case reports of two different types of dens invaginatus along with profound review of the literature regarding etiology, epidemiology, and histology. It discusses clinical appearance and diagnosis, and it provides guidelines for decision-making and treatment of invaginated teeth.

No abstract

Keywords:Dentinal hypersensitivity (DH) is a painful clinical condition and is characterized by pain arising from exposed dentin in response to various stimuli. Various treatment modalities are available to treat dentinal hypersensitivity which include at-home and in-office treatment. At home treatment generally consists of a variety of dentrifices containing different constituents like stannous fluoride, strontium chloride and potassium oxalate. These agents cause occlusion of dentinal tubules which decreases both dentine permeability and fluid movement thereby reducing hypersensitivity. Recently, bioactive glass (NovaMin) has been incorporated as a remineralising ingredient in dentifrice formulations for treating Dentinal Hyprsensitivity. It relieves the symptoms by precipitating hydroxycarbonate apatite (HCA) onto the tooth surface. Another combination product consisting of an aqueous solution of 5% glutaraldehyde and 35% hydroxyethyl methacrylate (Gluma desensitizer) has also been reported to be an effective desensitizing agent. Thus, the aim of the study was to evaluate and compare the tubule occluding effect of of two desensitizing agents, which are bioactive glass (Novamin), and Gluma Desensitizer. In the present study bioactive glass was found to produce more completely occluded tubules while Gluma desensitizer caused more partial occlusion on initial application. Hence, NovaMin application could be more effective in providing relief from dentinal hypersensitivity when compared with Gluma Desensitizer.Dentin Hypersensitivity, Desensitizing agents, Bioactive glass

No abstract