INVESTIGATING THE EFFECTS OF GLUMA DESENSITIZING AGENT ON REDUCING POST-OPERATIVE SENSITIVITY FOLLOWING COMPOSITE RESTORATIONS | ||||
| Alexandria Dental Journal | ||||
| Articles in Press, Corrected Proof, Available Online from 04 June 2024 PDF (363.22 K) | ||||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||||
| DOI: 10.21608/adjalexu.2024.263797.1467 | ||||
 View on SCiNiTO | ||||
| Authors | ||||
Nessrin Magdy Abd- Elkader  1; Waleed Abd EL Meguid El Mahy2; Rania Reda Afifi3
| ||||
| 1Instructor of Operative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt | ||||
| 2Conservative Dentistry Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt. | ||||
| 3Department of Conservative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University | ||||
| Abstract | ||||
| Introduction: Approximately 30% of patients experience postoperative sensitivity following the placement of resin composite restorations in posterior teeth. Dental desensitizing agents are commonly employed to address this postoperative sensitivity by effectively sealing off the dentinal tubules and alleviating hypersensitivity. Objective: The aim of this study is to assess the impact of gluma desensitizing agents on mitigating postoperative sensitivity subsequent to composite restoration procedures. Materials and methods: 10 patients, ranging in age from 18 to 45 years, exhibiting vital pulp and good oral hygiene, underwent the preparation of Class I cavities. Patients with abnormal habits and traumatic occlusion and with gingival disease were excluded. The patients were randomly assigned to one of two groups: Group I Gluma desensitizer, while Group II the control. Composite restorations were applied. The patients were evaluated for postoperative sensitivity. Results: Over the course of the 12-month study period, there were variations in VAS scores within both groups, but these differences were not statistically significant. Meanwhile, comparison of VAS scores within each group across different time points were significantly different (P= 0.001 and 0.01 for Gluma and control groups, respectively). shows the post-hoc comparisons of VAS scores between different time points within each group. Statistically significant differences were observed mainly during the comparisons involving the 1-month timepoint in both groups. Conclusion: Following the 12-months follow up period gluma proved to be the most efficient in minimizing postoperative sensitivity after composite restoration by occluding dentinal tubules followed by the controlled group. | ||||
| Keywords | ||||
| Class I restorative procedure; Dentin desensitizer; Gluma desensitizer; composite material; Postoperative sensitivity | ||||
|
Statistics Article View: 65 PDF Download: 89 |
||||
