Elif Öncü1, Said Karabekiroğlu2, Nimet Ünlü2. 1. Departmant of Periodontolgy, Necmettin Erbakan University, Konya, Turkey. 2. Departmant of Restorative Dentistry, Necmettin Erbakan University, Konya, Turkey.
Abstract
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.
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.