PURPOSE: To compare the dentin tubule-occluding ability of fluoroaluminocalciumsilicate-based (Nanoseal), calcium phosphate-based (Teethmate Desensitizer), resin-containing oxalate (MS Coat ONE) and diamine silver fluoride (Saforide) dentin desensitizers using artificially demineralized bovine dentin. METHODS: Simulated hypersensitive dentin was created using cervical dentin sections derived from bovine incisors using phosphoric acid etching followed by polishing with a paste containing hydroxyapatite. The test desensitizers were applied in one, two, or three cycles, where each cycle involved desensitizer application, brushing, and immersion in artificial saliva (n= 5 each). The dentin surfaces were examined with scanning electron microscopy, and the dentin tubule occlusion rate was calculated. The elemental composition of the deposits was analyzed with electron probe microanalysis. Data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA and the Tukey honestly significant different test. RESULTS: Marked deposit formation was observed on the specimens treated with Nanoseal or Teethmate Desensitizer, and tags were detected in the specimens' dentin tubules. These findings became more prominent as the number of application cycles increased. The major elemental components of the tags were Ca, F, and Al (Nanoseal) and Ca and P (Teethmate Desensitizer). The tubule occlusion rates of MS Coat ONE and Saforide were significantly lower than those of Nanoseal and Teethmate Desensitizer (P< 0.05).
PURPOSE: To compare the dentin tubule-occluding ability of fluoroaluminocalciumsilicate-based (Nanoseal), calcium phosphate-based (Teethmate Desensitizer), resin-containing oxalate (MS Coat ONE) and diamine silver fluoride (Saforide) dentin desensitizers using artificially demineralized bovine dentin. METHODS: Simulated hypersensitive dentin was created using cervical dentin sections derived from bovine incisors using phosphoric acid etching followed by polishing with a paste containing hydroxyapatite. The test desensitizers were applied in one, two, or three cycles, where each cycle involved desensitizer application, brushing, and immersion in artificial saliva (n= 5 each). The dentin surfaces were examined with scanning electron microscopy, and the dentin tubule occlusion rate was calculated. The elemental composition of the deposits was analyzed with electron probe microanalysis. Data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA and the Tukey honestly significant different test. RESULTS: Marked deposit formation was observed on the specimens treated with Nanoseal or Teethmate Desensitizer, and tags were detected in the specimens' dentin tubules. These findings became more prominent as the number of application cycles increased. The major elemental components of the tags were Ca, F, and Al (Nanoseal) and Ca and P (Teethmate Desensitizer). The tubule occlusion rates of MS Coat ONE and Saforide were significantly lower than those of Nanoseal and Teethmate Desensitizer (P< 0.05).
Authors: Syed Saad B Qasim; Dena Ali; Abdul Samad Khan; Shafiq Ur Rehman; Abid Iqbal; Jagan Kumar Baskaradoss Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2021-09-29 Impact factor: 3.411