Comparative evaluation of application of bioactive glass desensitizer and dentin bonding agent on prepared vital tooth in postoperative sensitivity at varying time period before cementation: An observational study.
B Bhuvaneswari, T Maheshwari, Fathima Banu Raza, R Shakir Ahmed, Anand Kumar Vaidyanathan
{"title":"Comparative evaluation of application of bioactive glass desensitizer and dentin bonding agent on prepared vital tooth in postoperative sensitivity at varying time period before cementation: An observational study.","authors":"B Bhuvaneswari, T Maheshwari, Fathima Banu Raza, R Shakir Ahmed, Anand Kumar Vaidyanathan","doi":"10.4103/jips.jips_433_24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>This study aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of bioactive glass as a desensitizer with dentin bonding agent in preventing the postvital tooth preparation sensitivity at three different time periods.</p><p><strong>Settings and design: </strong>An Observational Study.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>39 participants of age 25-30 years requiring vital tooth preparation were divided into Group A as control, distilled water as placebo; Group B test control, 7th generation dentin bonding agent; and Group C test, bioactive glass. Dentin hypersensitivity was evaluated on the day of preparation (T0), 7th day after preparation (T1), and 15th day (T2) at the final cementation procedure using the Schiff scale.</p><p><strong>Statistical analysis used: </strong>IBM SPSS statistics software, One way analysis of variance (ANOVA), Post hoc Bonferroni.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The descriptive statistics showed the mean and standard deviation at preapplication (T0) to be 2.23 ± 0.83, 2.53 ± 0.66, and 2.61 ± 0.65 for Group 1, Group 2, and Group 3, respectively, with no significant difference between the groups (P > 0.05). Intergroup analysis revealed there was a statistical difference between the 3 groups at T1 and T2, with post hoc Bonferroni depicting a lower mean for Group 3 of 1.53 ± 0.87 and 0.76 ± 1.09 at T1 and T2, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Bioactive glass has a significant reduction in the dentinal hypersensitivity on the vital prepared tooth compared to both negative control and dentin bonding agent.</p>","PeriodicalId":22669,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society","volume":"25 2","pages":"120-124"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12057824/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jips.jips_433_24","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/4/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Aim: This study aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of bioactive glass as a desensitizer with dentin bonding agent in preventing the postvital tooth preparation sensitivity at three different time periods.
Settings and design: An Observational Study.
Materials and methods: 39 participants of age 25-30 years requiring vital tooth preparation were divided into Group A as control, distilled water as placebo; Group B test control, 7th generation dentin bonding agent; and Group C test, bioactive glass. Dentin hypersensitivity was evaluated on the day of preparation (T0), 7th day after preparation (T1), and 15th day (T2) at the final cementation procedure using the Schiff scale.
Statistical analysis used: IBM SPSS statistics software, One way analysis of variance (ANOVA), Post hoc Bonferroni.
Results: The descriptive statistics showed the mean and standard deviation at preapplication (T0) to be 2.23 ± 0.83, 2.53 ± 0.66, and 2.61 ± 0.65 for Group 1, Group 2, and Group 3, respectively, with no significant difference between the groups (P > 0.05). Intergroup analysis revealed there was a statistical difference between the 3 groups at T1 and T2, with post hoc Bonferroni depicting a lower mean for Group 3 of 1.53 ± 0.87 and 0.76 ± 1.09 at T1 and T2, respectively.
Conclusion: Bioactive glass has a significant reduction in the dentinal hypersensitivity on the vital prepared tooth compared to both negative control and dentin bonding agent.
目的:评价生物活性玻璃与牙本质结合剂作为脱敏剂在三个不同时期预防生牙预备敏感的临床效果。环境和设计:一项观察性研究。材料与方法:39例25 ~ 30岁需要进行活牙准备的受试者分为A组作为对照组,蒸馏水作为安慰剂;B组对照试验,第7代牙本质粘接剂;C组试验,生物活性玻璃。牙本质过敏症的评估分别在牙本质准备当天(T0)、准备后第7天(T1)和最终固接时第15天(T2)采用希夫量表进行。统计分析采用:IBM SPSS统计软件,单因素方差分析(ANOVA), Post hoc Bonferroni。结果:描述性统计结果显示,组1、组2、组3术前T0的均值和标准差分别为2.23±0.83、2.53±0.66、2.61±0.65,组间差异无统计学意义(P < 0.05)。组间分析显示3组在T1和T2时有统计学差异,事后Bonferroni显示3组在T1和T2时的平均值分别为1.53±0.87和0.76±1.09。结论:生物活性玻璃与阴性对照和牙本质粘接剂相比,能显著降低牙本质过敏。