| Literature DB >> 34943385 |
Manami Tadano1, Aya Yamada1, Yuriko Maruya1, Ryoko Hino1, Tomoaki Nakamura1, Seira Hoshikawa1, Satoshi Fukumoto1,2, Kan Saito1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recently, tooth deformities have been frequently encountered by pediatric dentists. Severe enamel hypomineralization sometimes induces pain such as hyperesthesia, but composite resin restoration is difficult because it often detaches without any cavity preparation. Resin-based hypersensitivity inhibitors for tooth physically seal the dentinal tubules. It was reported that hypersensitivity inhibitor containing novel adhesive monomers forms apatite and induces remineralization in vitro. Therefore, these case series assessed the clinical effects of remineralization and the suppression of hypersensitivity by Bio Coat Ca (Sun Medical, Shiga, Japan).Entities:
Keywords: C-MET; MDCP; amelogenesis imperfecta; enamel dysplasia; enamel hypoplasia; molar incisor hypomineralization; pediatric dentistry; recently erupted permanent tooth; tooth sensitivity
Year: 2021 PMID: 34943385 PMCID: PMC8700649 DOI: 10.3390/children8121189
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Children (Basel) ISSN: 2227-9067
Figure 1Chemical formulas of new adhesive monomers C-MET and MDCP.
Figure 2BioCoat Ca is approved as a hypersensitivity inhibitor and self-etch adhesive with Bioactive Monomer™ added to Hybrid Coat (Sun Medical). Bioactive Monomer™ consists of a liquid with 4-methacryloxyethyl trimellitic anhydride (4-META), a brush with a polymerization initiator, and calcium.
Figure 3Opaque white (b; red) and brown (c; blue) areas were extracted from the enamel hypoplastic areas and photographed with a digital camera (a) using Photoshop.
Figure 4Case 1: Intraoral photograph before treatment.
Figure 5Case 1: Intraoral photograph after seven-times treatment.
In Case 1, the cloudiness and brown areas from the pre-treatment (before applications) and post-treatment (after 7 applications) images were measured as pixels by digital image analysis. The analysis was performed three times and the mean measures and standard deviations were calculated (mean ± SD). The significance of the differences in areas before and after treatment was evaluated with p-values by t-test.
| Case 1 | Pre-Treatment | Post-Treatment | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cloudiness | 6331 ± 1091 | 65 ± 48 | |
| Brown | 12,898 ± 1223 | 2118 ± 923 |
Figure 6Case 2: Intraoral photograph before treatment.
Figure 7Case 2: Intraoral photograph after seven-times treatment.
In Case 2, the cloudiness and brown areas from the pre-treatment (before applications) and post-treatment (after seven applications) images were measured as pixels by digital image analysis. The analysis was performed three times, and the mean and standard deviations of the measurements were calculated (mean ± SD). The significance of the differences in areas before and after treatment was evaluated with p-values by t-test.
| Case 2 | Pre-Treatment | Post-Treatment | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cloudiness | 27,886 ± 2341 | 7904 ± 1304 | |
| Brown | 4541 ± 2040 | 122 ± 156 |
Figure 8Case 3: intraoral photograph before treatment.
Figure 9Case 3: Intraoral photograph after seven-times treatment.
In Case 3, the cloudiness and brown areas from the pre-treatment (before applications) and post-treatment (after seven applications) images were measured as pixels by digital image analysis. The analysis was performed three times and the mean measures and standard deviations were calculated (mean ± SD). Cloudiness was not detected (N.D.). The significance of the differences in areas before and after treatment was evaluated with p-values by t-test.
| Case 3 | Pre-Treatment | Post-Treatment | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cloudiness | N.D. | N.D. | |
| Brown | 4858 ± 339 | 1755 ± 111 |
N.D. = Not detected.
Figure 10Case 4: Intraoral photograph before treatment.
Figure 11Case 4: Intraoral photograph after seven-times treatment.
In Case 4, the cloudiness and brown areas from the pre-treatment (before applications) and post-treatment (after seven applications) images were measured as pixels by digital image analysis. The analysis was performed three times, and the mean and standard deviations of the measurements were calculated (mean ± SD). The significance of the differences in areas before and after treatment was evaluated with p-values by t-test.
| Case 4 | Pre-Treatment | Post-Treatment | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cloudiness | 6872 ± 442 | 1903 ± 580 | |
| Brown | 6595 ± 102 | 1667 ± 671 |
Hyperesthesia suppressing treatment were performed once monthly. The mean and standard deviations of the VAS were calculated (mean ± SD). The significance of the differences between pre-treatment and after treatment (1, 4 and 7 months) was evaluated with p-values by t-test.
| Pre-Treatment | 1 Month | 4 Months | 7 Months | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Case 1 | 6.5 | 4 | 1 | 0.5 |
| Case 2 | 7.5 | 4.5 | 2 | 2.5 |
| Mean ± SD | 5.25 ± 2.1 | 2.50 ± 2.0 | 0.75 ± 0.95 | 0.75 ± 1.19 |
Hyperesthesia suppressing treatment were performed once monthly. The mean and standard deviations of the improvement rate of cloudiness and brown hypomineralization were calculated (mean ± SD). N.D. = not detected.
| Cloudiness | Brown | |
|---|---|---|
| Case 1 | 98.9% | 83.6% |
| Case 2 | 71.7% | 97.3% |
| mean ± SD | 81.0 ± 15.6% | 72.9 ± 26.2% |