Dentin Tubular Occlusion with Bioactive Glass Containing Dentrifice and Gluma Desensitizer–A Comparative Sem Evaluation

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

Effectiveness and cytotoxicity of two desensitizing agents: a dentin permeability measurement and dentin barrier testing in vitro study

“…This is inconsistent with Ishihata et al’s study, which showed that no septa were found inside the dentin after it was soaked in albumin and GLU was applied [ 8 ]. The results from group 1 contradict previous studies which found that glutaraldehyde-containing desensitizers occluded the dentinal tubules or reduced dentin permeability without the introduction of simulated dentinal fluid [ 11 , 12 , 39 , 40 ].…”

“…Moreover, materials that denature protein, such as glutaraldehyde, act on the dentinal fluid, which may not be observed in vitro [ 8 ]. Some studies have shown in SEM images that glutaraldehyde-containing desensitizers occlude the orifices of dentinal tubules [ 11 , 12 ]. However, Pereira et al indicated that glutaraldehyde-containing desensitizers did not produce particle precipitation at the opening or within the tubules as glutaraldehyde reacts with the plasma proteins present in the dentinal fluid [ 13 ].…”

“…There are some debatable results in the literature regarding glutaraldehyde-containing densensitizers, which have been shown to obtain effective dentinal tubule occlusion without the introduction of simulated dentinal fluid [ 11 , 12 ]. Other studies immersed the dentin specimens in diluted bovine serum before applying the desensitizing treatment [ 28 , 29 ], though this is not a realistic substitute for dentinal fluid due to bovine serum’s high viscosity [ 30 ]; it is necessary to evaluate the permeability of glutaraldehyde-containing desensitizers with a suitable perfusion fluid.…”