牙本质粘接剂与薄涂玻璃离子水门汀治疗外露根面牙本质过敏的临床比较。

Iftikhar Akbar, Huma Kamal, Ashfaq Azim
{"title":"牙本质粘接剂与薄涂玻璃离子水门汀治疗外露根面牙本质过敏的临床比较。","authors":"Iftikhar Akbar, Huma Kamal, Ashfaq Azim","doi":"10.55519/JAMC-03-12328","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Dentin hypersensitivity is a common clinical problem all over the world and it is called the common cold of dentistry. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of glass ionomer cement and dentin bonding agent in management of dentin hypersensitivity in patients presenting to Peshawar Dental College.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This Quasi-experimental study was conducted on patients presented to the Department of Operative dentistry and Endodontics from February to August 2022.A total of 60 patients in the age range of 18-70 were selected based on convenience sampling. The patients were divided into 2 groups. Group A received glass ionomer cement and Group B received dentin bonding agent. The sensitivity was assessed before treatment using visual analogue scale and documented as baseline reading with both tactile and evaporative stimuli. It was then evaluated immediately after treatment, as well as at 1 week and 6 weeks post-treatment, using the visual analogue scale with tactile & evaporative stimuli.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty Patients in group A were treated with glass ionomer cement & 30 patients in Group B received treatment with dentin bonding agent. The pain scores in both groups decreased from severe to moderate to mild or no pain immediately after application compared to baseline (p=0.613). During the 1 week follow up, most patients in both groups reported mild or no pain (p=0.64). After 6 weeks, most patients in both groups experienced mild pain (p=0.338).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Comparison of glass ionomer cement and dentin bonding agent revealed a significant difference in pain scores immediately after application. However, at 1- week and 6-weeks follow-ups, there was no significant difference between the two groups, as most patients reported only mild pain.</p>","PeriodicalId":517395,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Ayub Medical College, Abbottabad : JAMC","volume":"36 3","pages":"531-536"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"COMPARISON OF DENTIN HYPERSENSITIVITY MANAGEMENT OF EXPOSED ROOT SURFACES BY DENTIN BONDING AGENT AND THINLY APPLIED GLASS IONOMER CEMENT: A CLINICAL TRIAL.\",\"authors\":\"Iftikhar Akbar, Huma Kamal, Ashfaq Azim\",\"doi\":\"10.55519/JAMC-03-12328\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Dentin hypersensitivity is a common clinical problem all over the world and it is called the common cold of dentistry. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of glass ionomer cement and dentin bonding agent in management of dentin hypersensitivity in patients presenting to Peshawar Dental College.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This Quasi-experimental study was conducted on patients presented to the Department of Operative dentistry and Endodontics from February to August 2022.A total of 60 patients in the age range of 18-70 were selected based on convenience sampling. The patients were divided into 2 groups. Group A received glass ionomer cement and Group B received dentin bonding agent. The sensitivity was assessed before treatment using visual analogue scale and documented as baseline reading with both tactile and evaporative stimuli. It was then evaluated immediately after treatment, as well as at 1 week and 6 weeks post-treatment, using the visual analogue scale with tactile & evaporative stimuli.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty Patients in group A were treated with glass ionomer cement & 30 patients in Group B received treatment with dentin bonding agent. The pain scores in both groups decreased from severe to moderate to mild or no pain immediately after application compared to baseline (p=0.613). During the 1 week follow up, most patients in both groups reported mild or no pain (p=0.64). After 6 weeks, most patients in both groups experienced mild pain (p=0.338).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Comparison of glass ionomer cement and dentin bonding agent revealed a significant difference in pain scores immediately after application. However, at 1- week and 6-weeks follow-ups, there was no significant difference between the two groups, as most patients reported only mild pain.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":517395,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Ayub Medical College, Abbottabad : JAMC\",\"volume\":\"36 3\",\"pages\":\"531-536\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Ayub Medical College, Abbottabad : JAMC\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.55519/JAMC-03-12328\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Ayub Medical College, Abbottabad : JAMC","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.55519/JAMC-03-12328","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:牙本质过敏症是世界范围内常见的临床问题,被称为口腔常见病。本研究旨在比较玻璃离子水门栓和牙本质粘接剂治疗到白沙瓦牙科学院就诊的牙本质过敏患者的疗效。方法:对2022年2 - 8月在牙髓外科就诊的患者进行准实验研究。采用方便抽样法,选取年龄在18 ~ 70岁的患者60例。患者分为两组。A组采用玻璃离子水门汀,B组采用牙本质粘接剂。治疗前使用视觉模拟量表评估敏感性,并记录触觉和蒸发刺激的基线读数。然后在治疗后立即以及治疗后1周和6周使用触觉和蒸发刺激的视觉模拟量表进行评估。结果:A组30例采用玻璃离子水门汀治疗,B组30例采用牙本质粘结剂治疗。与基线相比,两组患者的疼痛评分均从重度降至中度至轻度或无疼痛(p=0.613)。在1周的随访中,两组患者均报告疼痛轻微或无疼痛(p=0.64)。6周后,两组患者均出现轻度疼痛(p=0.338)。结论:玻璃离子水门汀与牙本质粘接剂应用后即刻疼痛评分有显著差异。然而,在1周和6周的随访中,两组之间没有显着差异,因为大多数患者报告只有轻微的疼痛。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
COMPARISON OF DENTIN HYPERSENSITIVITY MANAGEMENT OF EXPOSED ROOT SURFACES BY DENTIN BONDING AGENT AND THINLY APPLIED GLASS IONOMER CEMENT: A CLINICAL TRIAL.

Background: Dentin hypersensitivity is a common clinical problem all over the world and it is called the common cold of dentistry. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of glass ionomer cement and dentin bonding agent in management of dentin hypersensitivity in patients presenting to Peshawar Dental College.

Methods: This Quasi-experimental study was conducted on patients presented to the Department of Operative dentistry and Endodontics from February to August 2022.A total of 60 patients in the age range of 18-70 were selected based on convenience sampling. The patients were divided into 2 groups. Group A received glass ionomer cement and Group B received dentin bonding agent. The sensitivity was assessed before treatment using visual analogue scale and documented as baseline reading with both tactile and evaporative stimuli. It was then evaluated immediately after treatment, as well as at 1 week and 6 weeks post-treatment, using the visual analogue scale with tactile & evaporative stimuli.

Results: Thirty Patients in group A were treated with glass ionomer cement & 30 patients in Group B received treatment with dentin bonding agent. The pain scores in both groups decreased from severe to moderate to mild or no pain immediately after application compared to baseline (p=0.613). During the 1 week follow up, most patients in both groups reported mild or no pain (p=0.64). After 6 weeks, most patients in both groups experienced mild pain (p=0.338).

Conclusions: Comparison of glass ionomer cement and dentin bonding agent revealed a significant difference in pain scores immediately after application. However, at 1- week and 6-weeks follow-ups, there was no significant difference between the two groups, as most patients reported only mild pain.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信