Comparison of Mean Efficacy of Gluma and Ultraez Desensitizer to Decrease Hypersensitivity of Vital Abutment Teeth Prepared for Full Coverage Restoration
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.51985/JBUMDC2020010Keywords:
Desensitizer, Gluma, UltraEz, Potassium Nitrate, HypersensitivityAbstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the mean change in hypersensitivity between Gluma and Potassium Nitrate (UltraEz) desensitizers,
on vital abutment teeth prepared for full coverage restorations.
Study Design and Setting: Randomized experimental study conducted at Watim Dental College, Rawalpindi, from February
to August 2019.
Methodology: Total 100 patients were included in this study. Inclusion criteria consisted of both male and female patients
with age ranging from 20-40 years, consisting of vital teeth and no active carious lesion. Two hours after tooth preparation,
vital abutment tooth was stimulated with a blast of air and hypersensitivity of the vital abutment was measured using Visual
Analog Scale (VAS). Then Gluma Desensitizer was applied on vital abutment for one minute, air dried and then rinsed.
After Gluma Desensitizer application, the abutment tooth was again stimulated with a blast of air and hypersensitivity of
the vital abutment was measured using VAS. All the data was entered and analysed using SPSS version 20.0. P values of
less than or equal to 0.05 was considered significant.
RESULTS; All the teeth before tooth preparation had zero hypersensitivity. After preparation, Mean+ SD of hypersensitivity
on VAS were 8.92 + 0.77 and 8.96 + 0.75 in Group A (Gluma) and Group B (UltraEz) respectively. After desensitizers
application, Mean+ SD of hypersensitivity on VAS were 4.00 + 0.75 and 2.00 + 0.72 in Group A (Gluma) and Group B
(UltraEz) respectively.
CONCLUSION: It was concluded that both desensitizers reduce Hypersensitivity but UltraEz Desensitizer (containing
Potassium Nitrate) relieves Hypersensitivity to a greater extent than Gluma Desensitizer when used on vital teeth prepared
for providing conventional Fixed Dental Prosthesis
References
Gupta N, Reddy UN, Vasundhar PL, Ramarao KS, Varma KP, Vinod V. Effectiveness of desensitizing agents in relieving the pre- and postcementation sensitivity for full coverage restorations: a clinical evaluation. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2013;14(5):858-65.
Shiau HJ. Dentin hypersensitivity. Journal of Evidence-Based Dental Practice. 2012;12(3):220-8.
Gernhardt CR. How valid and applicable are current diagnostic criteria and assessment methods for dentin hypersensitivity? An overview. Clinical oral investigations. 2013;17(1):31-40.
Mantzourani M, Sharma D. Dentine sensitivity: Past, present and future. Journal of Dentistry. 2013;41, Supp 4(0):S3-S17.
Olley RC, Sehmi H. The rise of dentine hypersensitivity and tooth wear in an ageing population. Br Dent J. 2017;223(4):293-7.
Pashley DH. How can sensitive dentine become hypersensitive and can it be reversed? Journal of dentistry. 2013;41:S49- S55.
Bamise CT, Esan TA. Mechanisms and treatment approaches of dentine hypersensitivity: a literature review. Oral health & preventive dentistry. 2011;9(4):353-67.
Jalalian E, Meraji N, Mirzaei M. A comparison of the efficacy of potassium nitrate and Gluma desensitizer in the reduction of hypersensitivity in teeth with full-crown preparations. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2009;10(1):66-73.
Mapkar MA, Jagtap A, Asadullah SRS. Effect of Two Different Types of Desensitizing Agents on Crown Retention Using Glass Ionomer Cement. International Journal of Oral Care and Research. 2018;6(3);12-16
Sucheta A, Keshava Prasad BS, Apoorva SM, Lakshmi P. Dentinal hypersensitivity—A review. Indian J Dent Sci 2013;2:112-6.
Orchardson R. Strategies for the management of dentine hypersensitivity. Tooth wear and sensitivity Taylor and Francis, London. 2000:315-25.
Zhang HQ, Chao YL. The effects of desensitizing bonding system for prevention of vital abutment hypersensitivity. Hau Xi Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2005;23(2):130-132.
Pamir T, Özyazici M, Baloðlu E, Önal B. The efficacy of three desensitizing agents in treatment of dentine hypersensitivity. Journal of clinical pharmacy and therapeutics. 2005;30(1):73-6.
Frechoso SC, Menéndez M, Guisasola C, Arregui I,Tejerina JM, Sicilia A. Evaluation of the efficacy of twopotassium nitrate bioadhesive gels (5% and 10%) in thetreatment of dentine hypersensitivity. A randomised clinicaltrial. Journal of clinical periodontology. 2003;30(4):315-20.
Tengrungsun T, Sangkla W. Comparative study in desensitizing efficacy using the GaAlAs laser and dentin bonding agent. Journal of dentistry. 2008;36(6):392-5.
Joshi S, Gowda AS, Joshi C. Comparative evaluation of NovaMin desensitizer and Gluma desensitizer on dentinal tubule occlusion: a scanning electron microscopic study. Journal of periodontal & implant science. 2013;43(6):269- 75.
Duran I, Sengun A. The long-term effectiveness of five current desensitizing products on cervical dentine sensitivity. Journal of oral rehabilitation. 2004;31(4):351-6.
Larson TD. Clinical uses of glutaraldehyde/2-hydroxyethy- lmethacrylate (GLUMA [R])[c]. Northwest Dentistry Journal. 2013;92(2):27-31.
Ahmed J, Ali SA, Jouhar R, Shah H.Clinical Assessment of Bonding Agent v/s Fluoride Varnish in Dentinal Hypersen- sitivity. J Bahria Uni Med Dental Coll. 2019;9(1):53-6.
Al-Saud L, Al-Nahedh H. Occluding effect of Nd: YAG laser and different dentin desensitizing agents on human dentinal tubules in vitro: a scanning electron microscopy investigation. Operative dentistry. 2012;37(4):340-55
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2020 Hamid Bashir, Shoaib Rahim, Jawad Ali Shah, Zarah Afreen, Ammarah Afreen, Eruj Shuja
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Journal of Bahria University Medical & Dental College is an open access journal and is licensed under CC BY-NC 4.0. which permits unrestricted non commercial use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0