Effectiveness of desensitizing agents in relieving the pre- and postcementation sensitivity for full coverage restorations: a clinical evaluation.

UNLABELLED: Patients frequently report sensitivity of prepared abutment teeth during the temporization period and after the fnal cementation of full coverage restoration. Purpose of this clinical investigation was to evaluate the effectiveness of desensitizing agents in reducing the pre- and postcementation sensitivity for full coverage restorations and to compare the relative effcacy of three in offce applied desensitizing agents in relieving the postcementation sensitivity with the use of glass ionomer luting cement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study consisted of 30 patients requiring either full coverage restoration or 3 unit fxed partial denture. Total of 40 restorations (n = 40) were made and were randomly assigned into four groups comprising 10 restoration (n = 10) in each group. Group C control where no desensitizer application was done, group BB applied with BisBlock dentin desensitizer (Bisco Inc.), group ST applied with Systemp desensitizer (Ivoclar Vivadent), group GC applied with GC Tooth Mousse desensitizer (GC Asia). Desensitizer application was done immediately after the tooth preparation. Sensitivity of the tested abutment was determined by the patient response to cold, hot and bite stimuli and were recorded on visual analog scale (VAS). Sensitivity level scores was evaluated at 4 time intervals, i.e. 1 week after desensitizer application at baseline precementation appointment and others at 5 minutes, 1 day and 1 week postcementation appointment. VAS score data was statistically analyzed using one-way ANOVA followed by post hoc Tukey's test. RESULTS: BisBlock and GC Tooth Mousse desensitizer resulted in statistically signifcant (p < 0.01) reduction in postcementation sensitivity of glass ionomer cement in comparison to Systemp desensitizer at 5 minutes, 1 week postcementation time interval with no statistical difference was seen between all desensitizer groups at 1 day postcementation. Application of BisBlock and GC Tooth Mousse desensitizer resulted in highly signifcant (p < 0.01) reduction in sensitivity level at the end of 1 week. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Desensitizer's application on the prepared abutment teeth is considerably effective in relieving both pre- and postcementation sensitivity for full coverage restoration over the short duration of time. Immediate reduction in postoperative sensitivity relatively in a short time period may be benefcial in terms of patient's comfort. Nonetheless, multicenter long-term clinical trials should be conducted to confrm the results. CONCLUSION: Efficacy of BisBlock and GC Tooth Mousse desensitizer was more in relieving the postcementation sensitivity of glass ionomer cement at various time intervals in comparison to Systemp desensitizer. In conclusion, application of desensitizers was beneficial to reduce the pre- and postcementation abutment sensitivity.

Evaluation of malocclusion in MPDS.

INTRODUCTION: Myofascial pain dysfunction syndrome (MPDS) is a disorder which is characterized by facial pain and limited mandibular function because of the complex nature of this disease. Malocclusion was never evaluated in MPDS patients to know its role. Electromyographic silent period durations of masseter were used for objective assessment of MPDS patients. AIM: To evaluation of role of malocclusion in MPDS patients and also to study the EMG masseteric silent period pattern in MPDS patients in different malocclusions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two groups, groups I and II of 75 subjects each, were included in this study. Groups I and II constituted the normal subjects and MPDS patients respectively. All these subjects in both the groups were again subdivided based on Angle's class I, II and III malocclusion. Electromyographic (EMG) silent period of masseteric muscle on both sides was measured for all the subjects in both the groups to know whether it differs according to the type of malocclusion. RESULTS: The silent period was more in group II (MPDS patients). There was no signifcant difference in the silent periods in Angle's class I, II and III malocclusion in group I, whereas in group II, there was a signifcant difference in the silent period in Angle's class II compared to Angle's class I and III. There was no signifcant difference between males and females. CONCLUSION: MPDS patients are more in Angle's class I malocclusion. Silent period is more in Angle's class II malocclusion of MPDS group. CLINICAL SIGNIFCANCE: The EMG masseter silent period duration can be advantageously utilized as an adjunct to clinical examination for diagnosis of myofascial pain dysfunction syndrome. It is enough if one side masseter muscle is measured for silent period duration.