Comparison of the effect of propolis and Gluma desensitizer on the management of dentin hypersensitivity: A randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect of propolis and gluma desensitisers on the management of dentin hypersensitivity. METHODS: The single-blind, randomised controlled trial was conducted at the Department of Operative Dentistry, Dr Ishrat ul Ebad Khan Institute of Oral Health Sciences, Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi, from October 2020 to September 2021, and comprised patients with dentin hypersensitivity who had pain scores of at least 2 on the visual analogue scale. The teeth were randomised into propolis group A and Gluma group B. Baseline pain scores were assessed using visual analogue scale and Schiff's sensitivity scores and compared with scores immediately after the intervention, and then after one week and one month of the intervention. Data was analysed using SPSS 23. RESULTS: Of the 22 patients, 12(54.5%) were females and 10(45.4%) were males. Of the 80 teeth, there were 40(50%) in each of the 2 groups. Significant reduction was observed in dentin hypersensitivity immediately after the application of the desensitising agents (p<0.05). However, after one month, Gluma was more effective than propolis (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Both Gluma and propolis were found to be effective desensitising agents, but the effectiveness of propolis decreased over one month. Clinical Trial Number: Clinical Trials.gov: NCT04819867.

Er:YAG laser therapy in combination with GLUMA desensitizer reduces dentin hypersensitivity in children with molar-incisor hypomineralization: a randomized clinical trial.

This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of erbium-doped yttrium garnet (Er:YAG) laser and GLUMA desensitizer for dentin hypersensitivity in teeth affected by Molar-Incisor Hypomineralization (MIH). One hundred twenty children were randomly allocated to four groups: the control (Co) group, the desensitizer (De) group, the laser (La) group, and the laser + desensitizer (La + De) group. Outcome measures included Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and 14-item Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14) evaluation. For mean VAS scores, a significant reduction was found over time in all groups. Co and De groups, Co and La groups, Co and La + De groups, De and La + De groups, and La and La + De groups differed significantly (p < 0.05). For mean scores in all dimensions of OHIP-14 after treatment 6 months, the La + De group was significantly lower (p < 0.001). The La + De groups and the La groups as well as the La + De groups and the De groups differed significantly in total OHIP, functional limitation, physical disability, and psychological disability (p < 0.05). Physical pain between the La + De groups and the La groups and handicap between the La + De groups and De groups differed significantly (p < 0.05). The mean values of each dimension differed significantly between the group Co and the La + De group (p < 0.0001). Combination therapy of Er:YAG laser and GLUMA desensitizer had greater desensitizing effects and oral health-related quality improvement of life, which might be an effective alternative treatment in dentin hypersensitivity in MIH children.

The Effect of Dentine Desensitizing Agents on the Retention of Cemented Fixed Dental Prostheses: A Systematic Review.

Background and Objectives: The use of desensitizing agents (DA) after tooth preparation to prevent hypersensitivity is well documented in the literature. A fixed dental prosthesis (FDP) should have good retention to be successful. Inadequate retention may result in microleakage, secondary caries, and, eventually, dislodgement of the FDP. The effect of DAs on the retention of FDPs has been widely studied in the literature, but the results are conflicting. Thus, this study aimed to conduct a systematic review to assess the effect of dentine desensitizing agents, used to prevent post-cementation hypersensitivity, on the retention of cemented FDPs. The null hypothesis framed was that there is no effect of dentine desensitizing agents on the retention of cemented FDPs. The focused PICO question was as follows: "Does the application of dentine desensitizing agents (I) affect the retention (O) of cemented fixed dental prosthesis (P) when compared to non-dentine desensitizing groups (C)"? Materials and Methods: Four electronic databases were systematically searched and, on the basis of the predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, 23 articles were included in this systematic review. A modified CONSORT scale for in vitro studies was used to assess the quality of the selected studies, as all included studies were in vitro studies. Results: Most of the studies compared the effect of more than one type of DA on retention. The results of the selected studies varied due to differences in the composition of tested dentine DAs and types of luting cements. Conclusions: Within the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that the retention values of FDPs cemented using zinc phosphate cement were reduced with most of the DAs, whereas retention values increased when GIC, resin-modified GIC, and resin cements were used with the majority of DAs. These findings are important, as they can guide dentists in selecting the DA before cementing the crowns with the luting agent of their choice, without compromising the retention of the crowns.

Efficacy of GLUMA for the Treatment of Dentin Hypersensitivity Compared to Lasers: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: Dentin hypersensitivity (DH) is characterized by a short, sharp pain in response to a thermal or tactile stimulus. The application of desensitizing agents such as GLUMA and laser is a non-invasive and safe approach to decrease sensitivity. The evidence for the efficacy of GLUMA desensitizer compared to laser desensitization in patients with DH was evaluated for 6 months. DESIGN: In March 2022, an electronic search of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases was conducted. Articles published in English that compared GLUMA and laser in the treatment of DH with a follow-up of 6 months or more were included. Randomized, non-randomized controlled trials, and clinical trials were included. Risk of bias assessment tools developed by the Cochrane collaboration ROB 2 and ROBINS-I were used to assess the quality of studies. The GRADE assessment method was used to assess the certainty of evidence. RESULTS: About 36 studies were identified in the search results. After applying the predefined eligibility criteria, eight studies with 205 participants and 894 sites were included in this review. Of the eight studies, four were judged to be at high risk of bias, three had some concerns, and one had a serious risk of bias. The certainty of the evidence was graded as low. CONCLUSION: Based on limited evidence, GLUMA and laser appear to be equally effective in providing relief from DH. GLUMA showed an immediate effect and provided pain relief. Over the course of a week, laser showed long-term stable results. GLUMA is effective in providing immediate relief.

Clinical trial of tooth desensitization prior to in-office bleaching.

The aim of this clinical trial was to compare tooth sensitivity during and after bleaching with hydrogen peroxide gel following application of GLUMA Desensitizer PowerGel or placebo. Forty-six subjects with sound maxillary incisors and canines were enrolled. Tooth shades were determined by comparison with a Vitapan Classic Shade guide. GLUMA Desensitizer PowerGel and placebo were randomly applied to the labial surfaces of the left or right anterior teeth for 1 min, which were then rinsed and dried. Then, Opalescence Boost PF 40% gel was applied onto labial enamel for 15 min. Sensitivity scores [recorded on a 10-point visual-analog scale (VAS)] were determined before, at 5, 10, and 15 min during, and 1, 24, 48 h and 1 wk after, the bleaching treatment. Shades were determined postbleaching and after 1 wk. Prebleaching application of GLUMA Desensitizer PowerGel significantly reduced tooth sensitivity during and after bleaching when compared with treatment with placebo. The whitening effects immediately and 1 wk after bleaching were significant when compared with the prebleaching shades. In conclusion, tooth pretreatment with GLUMA Desensitizer PowerGel for 1 min prior to 15 min of in-office bleaching with 40% hydrogen peroxide gel was highly effective in reducing tooth sensitivity during and after bleaching.

Influence of three different types of desensitizing agents on bond strength of etch-and-rinse and self-etch adhesive system on dentin: An in vitro study.

Aim: To determine the effect of three different dentin hypersensitivity treatment procedures on the microtensile bond strength of etch and rinse and self-etch adhesive system. Materials and Methods: Eighty extracted intact human permanent lower premolars were decoronated, and dentin was exposed on the buccal surface. The teeth were randomly assigned to two experimental groups of 40 teeth each: etch and rinse system or self-etch system. The 40 samples assigned were further randomly assigned to four desensitizing treatment subgroups: Control, Gluma, NovaMin, and GC tooth Mousse with 10 samples per subgroup. Desensitizing treatment was performed two times each day for 2 weeks respectively. The exposed dentin was subjected to etch and rinse or self-etch adhesive system bonding agent as per the group and restored using composite to 4-mm thickness. Samples were then subjected to universal testing machine for microtensile bond strength. Results: The bond strength to the dentin obtained with etch and rinse adhesive system group where significantly higher (P < 0.05) when compared to self-etch adhesive system. However, there was no significant effect of the desensitizing agent on the microtensile bond strength in its own. Scanning electron microscope imaging reviled tubular occlusion in all specimens treated with desensitizer. Conclusion: The bond strength was majorly impacted by the type of adhesive system used. While the desensitizing agents used in the study had little or no adverse effect on the bond strength of composites to dentin surface.

Efficacy of Three Commercially Available Desensitizers in Reducing Post-Operative Sensitivity Following Composite Restorations: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.

One of the most widely used esthetic restorations in dentistry is composite. The widespread application of composites can be related to advancements in biomaterials. However, due to various factors, composites are commonly associated with dental sensitivity. Hence, the present study evaluates and compares the effectiveness of three desensitizing agents in reducing post-treatment sensitivity for Class I composite restoration. Eighty subjects with Class I cavities were selected according to the inclusion criteria, and a randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical trial was carried out. Twenty patients were randomly assigned to four groups: Group C (Control group), Group GL (Gluma group), Group SF (Shield Force Plus group), and Group TC (Telio CS group). The desensitizers were applied after Class 1 cavity preparation and acid etching in all the groups, except the Control group, and thereafter, composite restoration was completed in a conventional manner. Questionnaires were provided to all the participants to record the post-operative pain/sensitivity level according to the visual analogue scale (VAS) on intake of cold drinks, intake of hot drinks, and intake of sugar for different periods of time. Significant variation was observed between the three desensitizers for all three stimuli. However, no significant variations were seen with the various age groups and between the maxillary and the mandibular teeth at the different time periods. Group GL performed better than Group SF and Group TC. It can be proposed that the application of the desensitizers reduced the post-restorative sensitivity in the composite restorations and improved acceptance.

Clinical Efficacy of Two Different Desensitizers in Reducing Postoperative Sensitivity Following Composite Restorations.

OBJECTIVE: The objective is to evaluate the efficacy of different desensitizing agents in the reduction of postoperative sensitivity after composite restoration. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Class I cavities were prepared in 39 patients by the same operator. The patients included in the study were between 20 and 45 years with vital pulp and a remaining dentin thickness of 1mm. Previously restored, nonvital and tooth with periodical changes were excluded. Patients were randomly assigned into three groups of 13 each - Group I (Control); Group II (Gluma desensitizer) and Group III (shield active desensitizer [SAD]). After the surface treatment, the teeth were restored with composite. The patients were assessed for postoperative sensitivity at 24 hours and one week with a visual analog scale (VAS). STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Data were analyzed using SPSS v23 software. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and post-hoc Tukey test. RESULTS:  Gluma and SAD on comparison with control group i.e. composite group showed statistical significance difference at day 1 (P-value 0.003), but on comparing the sensitivity after one week, there is no significant difference in sensitivity score between all three groups (P-value 0.073). There was no statistically significant difference between day 1 and one week when comparing Gluma desensitizer and SAD. CONCLUSION: The application of the desensitizer led to a statistically significant reduction in postoperative sensitivity on day 1 and a clinically significant reduction was observed at one week.

Comparison of the Effectiveness of Combined Diode Laser and GLUMA Bonding Therapy With Combined Diode Laser and 5% Sodium Fluoride Varnish in Patients With Dentin Hypersensitivity.

Introduction: Dentin hypersensitivity (DH) is one of the most common complaints of patients referred to a dental office, so this study aimed to compare the effectiveness of combined diode laser and GLUMA bonding therapy with combined diode laser and 5% sodium fluoride varnish in patients with DH. Methods: Sixty patients were divided into three groups (bonding, laser-bonding, laser-varnish), and before the intervention, the amount of DH was measured with the visual analogue scale (VAS) scale. In the bonding group, GLUMA Desensitizer solution was applied and then air-dried. In the bonding-laser group, first bonding was used, and then the affected tooth was irradiated with a diode laser. In the varnish-laser group, 5% sodium fluoride varnish was coated and then the laser was irradiated with the said method. DH was measured immediately after the treatment and then 2, 7 and 30 days after the treatment. Results: Laser-varnish treatment was not different from laser-bonding treatment at all measurement times (P=1). Laser-varnish and bonding treatment were not significantly different up to one week after the intervention, but on the 30th day after the intervention, the difference in pain was significant (P=0.01). There was no significant difference in laser-bonding treatment up to one week after the intervention, but on the 30th day after the intervention, the difference in pain was significant (P=0.003). Conclusion: The combined treatment with GLUMA bonding and the 660 nm diode laser is effective in reducing DH and this is more effective than GLUMA bonding alone in the long term. However, it does not have a significant advantage over the combined varnish-laser method, but it seems that due to its ease of use, it can be a suitable alternative to the varnish-laser method.

In Vitro Comparative Evaluation of Newly Produced Desensitizer, Chlorhexidine and Gluma on Bond Strength and Bond Longevity of Composite to Dentin.

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM:  Etching process on dentin can activate matrix metalloproteinase (MMP) which hydrolyze organic matrix of demineralized dentin. Gluma and chlorhexidine could inhibit the activation of MMP. PURPOSE:  The aim of the study was to evaluate the effect of a new desensitizing material consisting of Gluma and chlorhexidine together on the shear bond strength and bond durability of composite restorations. MATERIALS AND METHOD: One hundred and twenty caries-free extracted premolars were sectioned horizontally from one third of the coronal crown to expose flat dentin surface and randomly divided into 4 groups. In the control group, no surface treatment was used. In the first group chlorhexidine (CHX) 2%, in the second group, new material (NM) and in third group Gluma desensitizer (GD) was applied after etching and before bonding(total-etch bonding system). After the bonding process, the composite was placed on the surface of the samples using a cylindrical mold. Then, the shear bond strengths of half of the specimens were measured after 24 hours and the other half after 6 months of storage in distilled water and thermocycling. The failure types of specimens were evaluated with a stereomicroscope. Data were analyzed using One-way Anova and Tukey's Post Hoc tests in SPSS software. RESULTS:   After 6 months, the bond strength decreased in all groups and differences were statistically significant (p= 0.002).The highest shear bond strength was observed after 6 months in the NM group and the GD group with no statistically significant difference. The 24-hour bond strengths were not significant between groups. Mix failure had the highest rate in all groups. CONCLUSION:  It can be concluded that the effect of combination of chlorhexidine and Gluma on maintaining the integrity and strength of bond over time is similar to Gluma compound alone and they have better effect than chlorhexidine.

Influences of desensitizing agents on bond strength of etch-and-rinse and self-etch adhesive system to dentin.

BACKGROUND: Cervical lesions requiring adhesive restoration may present with dentin hypersensitivity, but the effect of desensitizer treatment on microtensile bond strength (MBS) is inconclusive. AIM: The aim of the present study was to assess the influence of two types of dentin desensitizing treatment on bond strength to dentin. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-six extracted human mandibular first premolars were used to obtain superficial buccal cervical dentin. The samples were assigned to two groups (18/group): etch-and-rinse (ERS) (Optibond® Solo) and self-etch (Palfique) adhesive systems. Eighteen teeth in each group were randomly assigned to three desensitizer treatments (6/treatment); control (no desensitization), Gluma™ desensitizerand Novamin-containing toothpaste (Sensodyne repair and protect™). Bonded dentin-composite specimens were stored in artificial saliva for 2 weeks prior to scanning electron microscope (SEM) evaluation and MBS testing. Univariate analysis of variance and Tukey tests were performed (α = 0.05) for the data analysis. RESULTS: The mean MBS with self-etch system (SES) was significantly higher than ERS system, irrespective of the dentin desensitizer regimen. SEM showed no hybrid layer or resin tag formation in the SES group. Tubular occlusion was observed in all specimens treated with desensitizer. CONCLUSION: Mild self-etch adhesive can be used on dentin treated with Gluma or bioglass-containing desensitizer without compromising the bond strength. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Dentin desensitizer such as in-office Gluma or at-home Novamin-containing toothpaste could be used without compromising the bond strength of mild self-etch adhesive systems.

Influence of desensitizing agents in management of noncarious cervical lesion and bonded restorations: A preliminary 12-week report.

OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this study was to investigate the effectiveness in reducing dentin hypersensitivity in noncarious cervical lesions (NCCLs) by home-based desensitizing toothpaste (TP), in-office Gluma desensitizer application, and resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (RMGIC) restoration. The secondary objective was to evaluate the long-term outcome of the glass-ionomer cement restoration following the application of bioactive glass-containing desensitizer TP. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 73 patients or 151 teeth were included in the study and randomly allotted to one of the four different treatment groups. Pre- and postoperative symptom and air-blast/tactile sensitivity scores were recorded for statistical analysis. Postoperative sensitivity was analyzed at 1, 4, and 12 weeks after treatment. Nonparametric statistical tests were employed. RESULTS: Kruskal-Wallis test noted a significant reduction in postoperative sensitivity at all time periods with the RMGIC group compared to other treatment options. Significantly higher patient dropout was observed in desensitizing TP regimen. CONCLUSIONS: This interim 12-week report on dentin hypersensitivity management of NCCLs concludes that resin-modified glass-ionomer restoration was able to achieve a significant instant reduction in sensitivity and patient satisfaction compared to other noninvasive at-home and in-office procedures. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This interim 12-week report on dentin hypersensitivity management of noncarious cervical lesions concludes that resin-modified glass-ionomer restoration was able to achieve a significant reduction in sensitivity, and patient satisfaction was higher compared to other noninvasive at-home and in-office procedures.

Evaluation of 3 different treatment modalities for conservative management of attrited, sensitive molar teeth - A preliminary 12-week report.

Management of symptomatic attrited molar teeth presents various challenges. Aim of the study was to manage and evaluate the outcome of sensitive, attrited molar teeth using three different treatment options, including bioglass-containing desensitising toothpaste, Gluma desensitiser and coronal a pulpotomy using a calcium silicate-based product, Biodentine. A total of 61 attrited molar teeth, for which the patients had expressed tooth sensitivity, were included. Depending on the pulp status, treatment groups were allotted using block randomisation. Post-treatment sensitivity was assessed at 48 h, 4 and 12 weeks using 10-point visual analog scale (VAS) and Schiff Cold Air Sensitivity Scale (SCASS). Data were analysed using non-parametric statistical tests. Pulpotomies achieved significantly the least post-treatment sensitivity scores at all scheduled recalls. This interim 12-week report on management concludes that a pulpotomy, using Biodentine, was able to achieve significantly higher number of asymptomatic teeth when compared to other treatment choices.

Evaluation and Comparison of Efficacy of Gluma® and D/Sense® Desensitizer in the Treatment of Root Sensitivity Induced by Non-Surgical Periodontal Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Dentinal hypersensitivity is one of the most common sequels of non-surgical periodontal therapy. Resulted discomfort may restrain patients from oral hygiene maintenance, thus affects the long-term success of periodontal therapy. So, it becomes a prime concern of the clinician to manage the post-operative hypersensitivity. AIM: This clinical investigation aimed to evaluate and compare the efficacy of D/Sense® and Gluma® in preventing post-operative sensitivity after non-surgical periodontal therapy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The present randomised, double-blind, split-mouth study was conducted on forty-five (22 male, 23 female) systemically healthy patients, with the mean age of 40 ± 17.5 years. Visual Analogue scale was used to evaluate root sensitivity after application of tactile and cold stimuli at baseline, 1, 2, 4 and 6 weeks after scaling and root planing. After scaling and root planning, the sites were randomly divided into different groups for the application of desensitising agents. Collected data were analysed by using, analysis of variance (ANOVA) for inter-group and paired t-test for intra-group comparisons. RESULTS: No adverse or side effects were reported by any of the patients throughout the study period. Gluma® showed a statistically significant reduction in the VAS score for root sensitivity as compared to D/Sense®, at 1, 2- and 4-weeks follow-up period (p < 0.05). Whereas, at 6th-week follow-up, both the solution showed almost similar score for root hypersensitivity. Intragroup comparison for D/Sense® revealed a significant difference in scores from baseline to all intervals (p < 0.05), except baseline to 6 weeks (p > 0.05). Whereas Gluma® showed a significant difference in scores from baseline to 2nd-week follow-up (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The result of the present investigation revealed that application of Gluma® resulted in better control on iatrogenic root hypersensitivity as compared to the D/Sense® during the initial follow-up period.

Evaluation of Five Different Desensitizers: A Comparative Dentin Permeability and SEM Investigation In Vitro.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and durability of five different dentin desensitizers (Gluma Desensitizer Powergel, Bifluorid 12, Gluma Self Etch Bond, D/Sense Crystal, Nupro Sensodyne Prophylaxis Paste with Novamin) on tubule occlusion and dentin permeability reduction in vitro. METHOD: The quantitative changes in permeability of 100 dentin discs were measured after desensitizer treatments and following post-treatments of 6% citric acid challenge for 1 min or immersion in artificial saliva for 24 hours under hydrostatic pressure generated by a computerised fluid filtration meter. Qualitative SEM analyses were also carried out. RESULTS: Dentin permeability decreased after desensitizer application in all groups. Nevertheless, only the difference between 'Gluma Self Etch Bond' and 'Nupro Sensodyne Prophylaxis Paste with Novamin' groups was significantly different (p<0.05). Dentin permeability increased significantly after post-treatments (p<0.05). There was no statistically difference among the citric acid-subgroups (p>0.05). Of all the artificial saliva-subgroups, only the difference between 'D/Sense Crystal' and 'Bifluorid 12' was significantly different (p<0.05). In SEM analysis, morphological changes were detected on the dentin surface and within the tubules following desensitizer treatments and post-treatments. CONCLUSION: All the desensitizers significantly reduced dentin permeability by changing the morphology of the dentin surface and/or dentinal tubules. Following post-treatments, there was some reduction in the efficacy of the desensitizers which was represented by the reduction in permeability values. SEM analysis revealed some physical changes in the dentin structure which can partly give an explanation to the reduced efficacy of tested desensitizers.

Effects of different desensitizers and lasers on dentine tubules: An in-vitro analysis.

BACKGROUND: Dentin hypersensitivity is an important clinical problem affecting a large percentage of the population, and various therapies have been suggested for its treatment-among them desensitizing agents and lasers. The aim of this study was to evaluate the in vitro effects of different in-office desensitizing agents and different type lasers, alone or in combination, on human dentinal tubules. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty-four dentinal specimens obtained from freshly extracted impacted third molars were included and subsequently divided into seven groups: Group 1 (Control), Group 2 (Gluma desensitizer), Group 3 (Teethmate desensitizer), Group 4 (Nd:YAG laser), Group 5 (Er:YAG laser), Group 6 (Gluma desensitizer + Er:YAG laser), and Group 7 (Teethmate desensitizer + Er:YAG laser). The dentinal specimens of all groups were evaluated using SEM. A total of 12 images per sample were taken, and the numbers of open, partially occluded, and totally visible (open + partially occluded) dentinal tubules were counted. AFM was used to further substantiate the blocking mechanism. The data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA and Dunnett-C tests. RESULTS: Comparison of the number of occluded dentinal tubules per 100 µm2 revealed that the laser and laser combined-treated groups showed the most occluded dentinal tubules. Gluma desensitizer + Er:YAG laser combination demonstrated significantly more tubule occlusion than all the other groups (p < .05). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study show that combined treatment methods were effective in the occlusion of dentinal tubules.

Comparing the effect of a desensitizing material and a self-etch adhesive on dentin sensitivity after periodontal surgery: a randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: This double-blind randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial evaluated the ability of a desensitizing agent and a self-etch adhesive on cervical dentin sensitivity (CDS) after periodontal surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety hypersensitive teeth of 13 subjects were included in the study. After periodontal surgery, the teeth of each posterior sextant treated with one of the following materials: G1: Clearfil S3 Bond (Kuraray Dental), G2: Gluma Desensitizer (Heraeus Kulzer), and G3: placebo (water). The sensitivity was assessed using evaporative stimuli before treatment (baseline, T0), 1 day after treatment (T1), after 1 week (T2), and after 1 month (T3) according to visual analog scale (VAS). RESULTS: Following the treatment, all the 3 groups showed significant reduction of CDS in T1 compared to T0. Reduction of CDS between T1 and T2 was observed only in G1 but there was no significant difference between T2 and T3 in this group. Although we observed a significant difference in T3 compared to T1 and T2 in G2 and G3, comparison of treatment groups in each assessment time showed a significant difference only in T3. According to paired comparison, this was due to the difference between G2 and G3. CONCLUSIONS: Dentin sensitivity following periodontal surgery will decrease spontaneously over time, but treating the sensitive teeth with Gluma Desensitizer and Clearfil S3 Bond can have some benefits.

Comparison of the Efficacy of Two Different Desensitizing Agents: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

AIM: To evaluate and compare the efficacy of oxalate-containing desensitizer BisBlock™ and glutaraldehyde-containing desensitizer Gluma©. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A subject-blind randomized controlled trial was conducted among 50 adult patients of age ranging from 18 - 65 years who self-reported dentine hypersensitivity. Each participant with at least one tooth with hypersensitivity in two different quadrants and showing a response of ≥ 3 on a visual analogue scale (VAS) to an evaporative stimulus was included in the study. The teeth were evaluated immediately after treatment, and after 24 hrs, one week, one month and 3 months from the baseline after application of BisBlock™, an oxalate-containing desensitizer, and Gluma©, a glutaraldehyde-containing desensitizer. RESULTS: Fifty participants were enrolled in the study. Means and standard deviations of VAS scores were calculated. The level of significance was set to p < 0.05. Statistically significant reduction in mean scores was found after application of Gluma© and BisBlock™ desensitizer (p < 0.001) at all time intervals. BisBlock™ yielded a statistically significant greater reduction in dentine hypersensitivity at 1 week (p < 0.05) and 1 month (p < 0.01) with evaporative stimulus. CONCLUSION: Compared with Gluma©, BisBlock™ gave statistically significantly greater reduction in hypersensitivity.

Effect of GLUMA desensitizer on the retention of full metal crowns cemented with Rely X U200 self-adhesive cement.

PURPOSE: Considering the importance of retention in the success and long-term clinical service of fixed partial dentures (FPDs) as well as the existing controversy regarding the effect of GLUMA desensitizer on the retention of full metal crowns cemented with RelyX U200 self-adhesive cement, this study aimed to assess the effect of GLUMA desensitizer on the retention of full metal crowns cemented using RelyX U200. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this experimental study, 20 sound human premolars were prepared; a 0.5 mm chamfer finish line was prepared above the cementoenamel junction. The teeth were randomly assigned to two groups: a desensitizer group (n = 10, treated with GLUMA desensitizer) and a control (n = 10, no surface treatment). Full metal crowns were fabricated of base metal alloy and had a ring. All crowns were cemented with RelyX U200 and subjected to retention test by using a universal testing machine. The data were analyzed using SPSS version 20 and independent t-test. RESULTS: The mean tensile bond strength was significantly higher in the GLUMA desensitizer group (230.63 ± 63.8 N) compared to the control group (164.45 ± 39.3 N) (P≤.012). CONCLUSION: GLUMA desensitizer increases the tensile bond strength of RelyX U200 self-adhesive cement to dentin.

Evaluation of instant desensitization after a single topical application over 30 days: a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of ProArgin(™) (8% arginine), Gluma(®) and NovaMin(®) (5% calcium phosphosilicate) in relieving dentinal hypersensitivity immediately and over 30 days following a single topical application. METHODS: A three-cell, parallel group randomized trial was conducted among 56 patients exhibiting dentinal hypersensitivity with tooth as the unit of study. ProArgin(™) paste, Gluma(®) Desensitizer and NovaMin(®) paste were applied on randomly assigned teeth in each participant. Three stimuli were tested: tactile stimulated by running an explorer and measured using VAS (1-10 scale); air blast and cold water stimulated hypersensitivity measured using the Schiff Sensitivity Scale at baseline, immediately, 15 days and 30 days after application. Friedman test and Wilcoxon test were used for within group comparisons. Kruskal-Wallis test and Mann-Whitney U test were used for between group comparisons. RESULTS: All three groups showed significant reductions in hypersensitivity from baseline at all time points (p < 0.05). ProArgin(™) paste elicited a significantly higher reduction in hypersensitivity (p < 0.016) compared to Gluma(®) and NovaMin(®) for all stimuli at the end of 30 days. CONCLUSIONS: A single topical application of ProArgin(™) paste is significantly more effective than both a single topical application of Gluma(®) and NovaMin(®) paste in relieving dentinal hypersensitivity immediately and over 30 days.