Farklı desensitizerlerin dentin tübüllerine etkisinin incelenmesi: in vitro taramalı elektron mikroskop analizi

Abstract

Amaç: Bu in vitro çalışmanın amacı Siyanoakrilat (Periacryl) ve tetra-kalsiyum fosfat ve dikalsiyum fosfat içerikli desensitizerin (Teethmate) kombine ve tekli uygulamalarının kalıcılığının ve dentin tübüllerine etkisinin değerlendirilmesidir.

Gereç ve Yöntemler: Gömülü 20 yaş dişlerinden 140 dentin preparatı elde edilmiştir. Preparatlar 7 gruba ayrılmıştır (n=20). Hiçbir uygulama yapılmayan preparatlar “K” kontrol, %6 sitrik asitte 1 dk. bekletilenler PS ( Periacryl ) TS (Teethmate )  PTS(kombine uygulama)   ; 24 saat yapay tükürükte bekletilenler TY (Teethmate ) PY (Periacryl ) PTY (kombine uygulama ) olarak gruplanmıştır. Uygulama tamamlandığında preparatlar SEM cihazı kullanılarak morfolojik yapıları, açık dentin tübül alanları ve açık dentin tübül çapları açısından değerlendirilmiştir.

Bulgular: Açık dentin tübüllerinin alanı kontrol grubuna kıyasla PS, PY, PTS ve PTY gruplarında azalmıştır (p>0,05). Numunelerdeki açık dentin tübül çap ortalamaları kontrol grubuna göre PS, PY, PTY, PTS ve TY gruplarında anlamlı derecede azalmıştır (p>0,05) . Sitrik asit uygulanan gruplarda istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir farklılık yokken yapay tükürük uygulanan gruplarda açık dentin tübül çap ortalaması, PTY grubunda TY grubundan istatistiksel olarak anlamlı derecede küçüktür (p>0,05) .  

Sonuç: Periacryl dentin hassasiyet tedavisinde kullanılabilecek bir preparat olmakla birlikte kombine kullanımda Teethmate ’in kalıcılığını arttırmaktadır.   

Keywords

• SEM,Periacryl, dentin desensitizasyon

Evaluation of the effect of different desensitizers on dentin tubules: An in vitro scanning electron microscopy analysis

Abstract

Aim: The aim of this in vitro study is to evaluate the persistence of the combined and single applications of cyanoacrylate (Periacryl) and tetra-calcium phosphate + dicalcium phosphate containing desensitizer (Teethmate) and their effect on dentin tubules.

 

Material and Methods: 140 dentin samples were obtained from impacted third molars. The samples were divided into 7 groups (n = 20). Samples without any application named as K (control), samples were subjected to 6% citric acid solution for 1 min; PS (Periacryl) TS (Teethmate) PTS (combined application). Samples were immersed in artificial saliva for 24 hours named as; TY (Teethmate) PY (Periacryl) PTY (combined application). When the application was completed, the preparations were evaluated by scanning electron microscopy in terms of morphological structures, open dentin tubule areas and open dentin tubule diameters.

Results: The area of ​​open dentin tubules decreased in PS, PY, PTS and PTY groups compared to the control group (p> 0.05). The mean diameter of the open dentin tubule in the samples was significantly decreased in the PS, PY, PTY, PTS and TY groups compared to the control group (p> 0.05). While there was no statistically significant difference in citric acid treated groups, the mean dentin tubule diameter was significantly lower in the group with artificial saliva than the TY group in the PTY group (p> 0.05).

Conclusion: Periacryl is a preparation that can be used in the treatment of dentin sensitivity, however, it increases the retention of Teethmate in combined use.

Keywords

• SEM,Periacryl,Dentin Desensitization

References

1. 1. Absi E, Addy M, Adams D, Dentine hypersensitivity. Journal of Clinical Periodontology 1987; 145: 280-84.
2. 2. van Loveren C et al. Dentin hypersensitivity management. Clinical Dentistry Reviewed 2018; 21: 6.
3. 3. Gillam D et al. Prevalence of dentine hypersensitivity in patients recruited for clinical trials. Journal De Parodontologie & D'Implantologie Orale, Abstracts EuroPerio 1994; 1: 66.
4. 4. Gillam DG. The Assessment And Treatment Of Cervical Dentinal Sensitivity.DDS thesis, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh; 1992.
5. 5. Brännström M, Lindén L, Åström A, The hydrodynamics of the dental tubule and of pulp fluid. Caries Research 1967; 14: 310-17.
6. 6. Addy M. Dentine hypersensitivity: new perspectives on an old problem. International Dental Journal 2002; 52 : 367-75.
7. 7. Pashley DH, Dentin permeability, dentin sensitivity, and treatment through tubule occlusion. Journal of Endodontics 1986; 1210: 465-74.
8. 8. Hypersensitivity, C.A.B.o.D., Consensus-based recommendations for the diagnosis and management of dentin hypersensitivity. Journal (Canadian Dental Association) 2003; 69: 221-26.

9. 9. Gangarosa LP. Current strategies for dentist-applied treatment in the management of hypersensitive dentine. Arch Oral Biol 1994; 39: 101-106.
10. 10. Gillam D, Orchardson R, Advances in the treatment of root dentine sensitivity: mechanisms and treatment principles. Endodontic Topics 2006; 131: 13-33.
11. 11. Ishihata H et al. Effect of two desensitizing agents on dentin permeability in vitro. Journal of Applied Oral Science 2017; 251: 34-41.
12. 12. De la Caridad Pérez M et al. Effectiveness and safety of tisuacryl in treating dentin hypersensitivity (DH). MEDICC review 2010; 12: 24-28.
13. 13. Lopes-Silva AMS, Lage-Marques JL. Evaluation of the permeability of the furcation area of deciduous molars conditioned with Er: YAG laser and cyanoacrylate. Pesquisa Odontologica Brasileira 2003; 173: 212- 16.
14. 14. Rösing CK et al. Dentine hypersensitivity: analysis of self-care products. Brazilian oral research 2009; 23: 56-63.
15. 15. Mordan N, Barber P, Gillam D, The dentine disc. A review of its applicability as a model for the in vitro testing of dentine hypersensitivity. Journal of oral rehabilitation 1997; 242: 148-56.
16. 16. Pereira JC, Martineli ACBF, Tung MS. Replica of human dentin treated with different desensitizing agents: a methodological SEM study in vitro. Brazilian dental journal 2002; 132: 75-85.
17. 17. Wang Z et al, Effect of desensitising toothpastes on dentinal tubule occlusion: a dentine permeability measurement and SEM in vitro study. J Dent 2010; 385: 400-10.
18. 18. Mehta D et al. Randomized, placebo-controlled study of the efficacy of a calcium phosphate containing paste on dentin hypersensitivity. Dental Materials 2015; 3111: 1298-303.
19. 19. Thanatvarakorn O et al. In vitro evaluation of dentinal hydraulic conductance and tubule sealing by a novel calcium–phosphate desensitizer. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part B: Applied Biomaterials 2013; 1012: 303-309.
20. 20. Zhou J et al. Effects of a dicalcium and tetracalcium phosphate-based desensitizer on in vitro dentin permeability. PloS one 2016; 11: 0158400.
21. 21. Öncü E, Karabekiroğlu S, Ünlü N, Effects of different desensitizers and lasers on dentine tubules: An in vitro analysis. Microscopy research and technique 2017; 807: 737-44.
22. 22. James JM, Puranik MP, Sowmya KR. Dentinal Tubule Occluding Effect of Potassium Nitrate in Varied Forms, Frequencies and Duration: An In vitro SEM Analysis. J Clin Diagn Res 2017; 118: 6-8.
23. 23. Williams C, Wu Y, Bowers DF. ImageJ analysis of dentin tubule distribution in human teeth. Tissue and Cell 2015; 474: 343-48.