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

Abstract

Background When evaluating the efficacy and safety of various desensitizing products in vitro, their mechanism of action and clinical utility should be considered during test model selection. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of two desensitizers, an in-office use material and an at-home use material, on dentin specimen permeability, and their dentin barrier cytotoxicity with appropriate test models. Methods Two materials, GLUMA desensitizer (GLU) containing glutaraldehyde and remineralizing and desensitizing gel (RD) containing sodium fluoride and fumed silica, were selected. Human dentin specimens were divided into three groups (n = 6): in groups 1 and 2, GLU was applied, and in group 3, RD was applied and immersed in artificial saliva (AS) for 24 h. Dentin specimen permeability before and after each treatment/post-treatment was measured using a hydraulic device under a pressure of 20 cm H2O. The perfusion fluid was deionized water, except in group 2 where 2% bovine serum albumin (BSA) was used. The representative specimens before and after treatment from each group were investigated using scanning electron microscopy. To measure cytotoxicity, test materials were applied to the occlusal surfaces of human dentin disks under which three-dimensional cell scaffolds were placed. After 24-h contact within the test device, cell viability was measured via 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide (MTT) assays. Results GLU significantly reduced the dentin permeability and occluded the dentinal tubules when 2% BSA was used as perfusion fluid. RD significantly reduced dentin permeability and occluded the tubules, but permeability rebounded after AS immersion. GLU significantly decreased cell viability, but RD was non-cytotoxic. Conclusions In vitro GLU application induced effective dentinal tubule occlusion only following the introduction of simulated dentinal fluid. RD provided effective tubule occlusion, but its full remineralization potential was not realized after a short period of immersion in AS. GLU may harm the pulp, whereas RD is sufficiently biocompatible.

Investigating the Effects of Gluma Desensitizing Agent on Reducing Post-Operative Sensitivity Following Composite Restorations

“…The dentinal sensory mechanism is probably intricately associated with the fluid dynamics of both dentin and pulpal fluids (4). Changes in the flow of dentinal fluid can activate nerve endings situated at the terminations of dentinal tubules or within the pulp-dentin complex, leading to the onset of dentin hypersensitivity (16,17). The research aimed to evaluate variations in dentin permeability resulting from the application of gluma desensitizing agent.…”

Dentin Hassasiyet Gidericilerin Sığır Pulpasından Türetilen Hücre Canlılığı Üzerindeki Sitotoksik Etkisi

“…Nonetheless, a part of dental materials that contain those ingredients with hazardous effects may have acceptable effects on in vivo tooth pulp. 3 With this study evaluation the in vitro cytotoxicity of different types of dentin desensitizing agents on bovine pulp-derived cells (bDPCs) is aimed. Our hypothesis on this study is that: there is no difference in cytotoxicity between tested dentin desensitizing agents.…”

Clinical Evaluation of the Use of Desensitizing Agents in the Management of Dentinal Hypersensitivity

“…Several studies report the application of n-HAp as biomimetic material for enamel reconstruction after tooth mineral component loss, thanks to its aforementioned unique remineralization potential [19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26]. N-HAp toothpaste showed promising results in DH management and post-bleaching-related sensitivity [27][28][29].…”