
To evaluate the effect of four proprietary dentin desensitizing agents on dentin tubular occlusion, chemical composition changes on the dentin surface, and the effect of saliva and toothbrushing on these agents.Fifty dentin discs, obtained from 50 freshly extracted human premolar and molar teeth were used in this study. These were divided into five groups of 10 discs each. Five discs from each group were treated with the desensitizing agents, viewed under the SEM and subjected to energy dispersive X-ray analysis. The other five discs were treated with the desensitizing agents, immersed in artificial saliva, subjected to simulated toothbrushing equivalent to 3 weeks of normal brushing and viewed under the SEM. The agents studied were Sensodyne Dentin Desensitizer, Therma-Trol Desensitizer Gel, Gluma Desensitizer and All-Bond DS.The Kruskal-Wallis test followed by the Wilcoxon signed-rank test showed that Sensodyne Dentin Desensitizer exhibited the greatest amount of tubular occlusion among the unbrushed samples, followed by Therma-Trol Desensitizer Gel, Gluma Desensitizer and All-Bond DS (P < 0.05) in that order. Toothbrushing increased tubular occlusion in all cases except the Sensodyne Dentin Desensitizer treated samples.
Observer Variation, Toothbrushing, Oxalates, Chi-Square Distribution, Dentin Sensitivity, Statistics, Nonparametric, Dentin Permeability, Evaluation Studies as Topic, Glutaral, Smear Layer, Dentin, Microscopy, Electron, Scanning, Humans, Methacrylates, Saliva, Electron Probe Microanalysis
Observer Variation, Toothbrushing, Oxalates, Chi-Square Distribution, Dentin Sensitivity, Statistics, Nonparametric, Dentin Permeability, Evaluation Studies as Topic, Glutaral, Smear Layer, Dentin, Microscopy, Electron, Scanning, Humans, Methacrylates, Saliva, Electron Probe Microanalysis
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 32 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% |
