Efficacy of desensitizing agents in the treatment of dentinal hypersensitivity

2018 ◽  
Vol 34 ◽  
pp. e79-e80
Author(s):  
J.M. Moreira ◽  
V.C. Ruschel ◽  
A.S. Bandeira ◽  
G.B. Raube ◽  
J.K. Bernardon
Keyword(s):  
Desensitizing Agents ◽  
Dentinal Hypersensitivity

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

2014 ◽  
Vol 02 (01) ◽  
pp. 016-021
Author(s):  
Ashu Gupta ◽  
Neha Sharma ◽  
Manmohan Bramta
Keyword(s):  
Bioactive Glass ◽  
Treatment Modalities ◽  
Tooth Surface ◽  
Strontium Chloride ◽  
Potassium Oxalate ◽  
Dentinal Tubules ◽  
Initial Application ◽  
Desensitizing Agents ◽  
Dentinal Hypersensitivity ◽  
At Home

AbstractDentinal 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.

scholarly journals Comparative Evaluation of Efficacy of Two New Commercially Available Desensitizing Agents: An in vivo Study

2016 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 40-44
Author(s):  
Sohani Maroli
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Evaluation ◽  
Cold Water ◽  
Anterior Teeth ◽  
Water Test ◽  
Desensitizing Agents ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
Tactile Response ◽  
Dentinal Hypersensitivity ◽  
Group 1

ABSTRACT Objective To compare the clinical efficacy of two commercially available desensitizing agents, Fluorprotector vivampuole and GLUMA comfort bond plus desensitizer in the treatment of dentinal hypersensitivity. Materials and methods A total of 203 teeth were selected for study. Patients who presented with a history of sensitivity to hot/cold, sweet, and sour food were examined using light tactile response along the cervical margin of the teeth. The assessment methods used to quantify sensitivity were tactile test, air blast test, and cold water test. The subjects were randomly divided into two groups. Group 1: GLUMA comfort bond plus desensitizer; group 2: Fluorprotector vivampuole (newly introduced by Ivoclar). The patients were evaluated for sensitivity at five appointments: at baseline, immediately after application of the agent, 1 day after application, after 1 week, and after 1 month. Results Patients belonging to group 2 showed significantly better results compared with patients of group 1 at 4 weeks. Conclusion Both the desensitizing agents showed significant reduction in sensitivity at all time intervals compared with baseline. However, Fluorprotector vivampuole appeared to be more effective in providing long-term relief against all the three test stimuli. Clinical Significance Fluorprotector vivampuole is a newly introduced fluoride varnish which is clear and colorless. It can be used in cases of dentinal hypersensitivity without affecting the aesthetics of the patient, particularly in case of anterior teeth. How to cite this article Maroli S. Comparative Evaluation of Efficacy of Two New Commercially Available Desensitizing Agents: An in vivo Study. Int J Experiment Dent Sci 2016;5(1):40-44.

Enhancing the efficiency of desensitizing agents with shockwave treatment – a new paradigm in dentinal hypersensitivity management

RSC Advances ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 6 (73) ◽  
pp. 68973-68978 ◽  
Author(s):  
Akshay Datey ◽  
C. S. Adeeb Thaha ◽  
Sudhir R. Patil ◽  
Jagadeesh Gopalan ◽  
Dipshikha Chakravortty
Keyword(s):  
Dentin Hypersensitivity ◽  
New Paradigm ◽  
Desensitizing Agents ◽  
Dentinal Hypersensitivity

Micro-shockwave assisted dentin hypersensitivity management.

scholarly journals Comparitive Evaluation of Novel Desensitising Agents on Dentinal Tubule Occlusion-A Scanning Electron Microscopic Study

2020 ◽  
pp. 11-18
Author(s):  
Dr. Madhavi Ajit Shetty ◽  
Dr. Sharad Kokate ◽  
Dr. Vibha Hegde
Keyword(s):  
Control Group ◽  
Dentinal Tubule ◽  
Tetraacetic Acid ◽  
Electron Microscopic ◽  
Dentinal Tubules ◽  
Scanning Electron Microscopic Study ◽  
Scanning Electron Microscopic ◽  
Desensitizing Agents ◽  
Dentinal Hypersensitivity ◽  
Tubule Occlusion

Aim: To comparatively evaluate the occlusion of dentinal tubules by four novel desensitizing agents for treatment of Dentinal Hypersensitivity. Materials and Methods: The Diode Laser and three commercially available Desensitizers the NovaminR group- (SHY-NMTM), Colgate Sensitive Pro-relief, Gluma were investigated in this study. 30 extracted mandibular molars were used (n=30). They were divided into 5 groups including the control group in which no treatment was done. Teeth were ground under water-cooled trimming wheel, to prepare flat dentin surfaces. The dentin surfaces were etched to remove any smear plugs and to mimic the open dentinal tubules of sensitive dentin using 0.5 M Ethylene Diamine Tetraacetic Acid (pH 7.4) for two minutes (applied with a micro brush) and then rinsed with an air-water syringe for 30 seconds.

scholarly journals Evaluation and comparision of the clinical effectiveness of diode laser and Gluma as desensitizing agents in the treatment of dentinal hypersensitivity

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 69-72
Author(s):  
Nemakal Sumana ◽  
Chakravarthy YSHS ◽  
Ch Susmitha S S ◽  
Patcha Harika ◽  
Sravani Bontu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Diode Laser ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Adhesive System ◽  
Dentin Hypersensitivity ◽  
Presenting Symptoms ◽  
Vas Score ◽  
Group I ◽  
Desensitizing Agents ◽  
Dentinal Hypersensitivity

Dentin hypersensitivity is one of the most common presenting symptoms in dental practice. It may range from mild discomfort to severe pain affecting the person. Laser desensitization has been introduced as a useful tool for the treatment of hypersensitivity. Gluma Dentin Bond is an adhesive system, where the primer contains 5% glutaraldehyde and 35% hydroxyethyl methacrylate. Practitioners have reported a strong desensitizing effect of the Gluma® system on dentin The aim of this study is to evaluate and compare the clinical effectiveness of Diode laser and Gluma ®desensitizing agent in the treatment of dentin hypersensitivity. 24 patients aged between 20 and 50 years was included to assess tooth sensitivity, a controlled air stimulus (evaporative stimulus) was used. Sensitivity was measured using a 10-cm Visual Aanalog Scale (VAS) score. The teeth was randomly allocated to two groups i.e., Group I or II using the lottery method. Gluma® showed a statistically significant reduction in the VAS score as compared to diode laser 1, 2- and 4-weeks follow-up period (p < 0.05).  The result of the present investigation revealed that application of Gluma® resulted in better control dentin hypersensitivity as compared to diode laser.

Subepithelial Connective Tissue Graft for Gingival Recession Coverage: A Case Report

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anita Mehta
Keyword(s):  
Case Report ◽  
Connective Tissue ◽  
Gingival Recession ◽  
Tooth Brushing ◽  
Vulnerable Area ◽  
Connective Tissue Graft ◽  
Tissue Graft ◽  
Keratinized Tissue ◽  
Subepithelial Connective Tissue Graft ◽  
Dentinal Hypersensitivity

The Gingival recession is considered a multi-factorial. The etiology may be an anatomically vulnerable area, faulty tooth brushing, high frenum attachment. In cases where there is progressive recession, aesthetics concern or increasing dentinal hypersensitivity, we can do recession coverage. Depending upon the presence or absence of adequate keratinized tissue we can choose the technique. In case of adequate width of keratinized tissue, usually we can do displaced flap and in case where there is inadequate width, we can do gingival grafting.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document