In vitro dentin permeability after application of Gluma® desensitizer as aqueous solution or aqueous fumed silica dispersion

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Ishihata,Hiroshi
Data de Publicação: 2011
Outros Autores: Finger,Werner J, Kanehira,Masafumi, Shimauchi,Hidetoshi, Komatsu,Masashi
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Journal of applied oral science (Online)
Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1678-77572011000200011
Resumo: OBJECTIVES: To assess and to compare the effects of Gluma® Desensitizer (GDL) with an experimental glutaraldehyde and HEMA containing fumed silica dispersion (GDG) on dentin permeability using a chemiluminous tracer penetration test. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty disc-shaped dentin specimens were dissected from extracted human third molars. The dentin specimens were mounted in a split chamber device for determination of permeability under liquid pressure using a photochemical method. Ten specimens were randomly selected and allocated to the evaluation groups Gluma® Desensitizer as aqueous solution and glutaraldehyde/HEMA as fumed silica dispersion, respectively. Dentin disc permeability was determined at two pressure levels after removal of smear with EDTA, after albumin soaking, and after application of the desensitizing agents. Two desensitizer-treated and rinsed specimens of each group were examined by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) for surface remnants. RESULTS: Comparatively large standard deviations of the mean EDTA reference and albumin soaked samples permeability values refected the differences of the dentin substrates. The mean chemiluminescence values of specimen treated with GDL and GDG, respectively, were signifcantly reduced after topical application of the desensitizing agents on albumin-soaked dentin. The effects of GDL and GDG on permeability were not signifcantly different. Treated specimens showed no surface remnants after rinsing. CONCLUSIONS: The experimental desensitizer gel formulation reduced dentin permeability as effectively as the original Gluma® Desensitizer solution.
id USP-17_59edc911096ee341fbc46f6cc6228d36
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S1678-77572011000200011
network_acronym_str USP-17
network_name_str Journal of applied oral science (Online)
repository_id_str
spelling In vitro dentin permeability after application of Gluma® desensitizer as aqueous solution or aqueous fumed silica dispersionDenting desensitizing agentsGluma DesensitizerGlutaraldehydeDentinal fuidDentin permeabilityLuminescenceOBJECTIVES: To assess and to compare the effects of Gluma® Desensitizer (GDL) with an experimental glutaraldehyde and HEMA containing fumed silica dispersion (GDG) on dentin permeability using a chemiluminous tracer penetration test. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty disc-shaped dentin specimens were dissected from extracted human third molars. The dentin specimens were mounted in a split chamber device for determination of permeability under liquid pressure using a photochemical method. Ten specimens were randomly selected and allocated to the evaluation groups Gluma® Desensitizer as aqueous solution and glutaraldehyde/HEMA as fumed silica dispersion, respectively. Dentin disc permeability was determined at two pressure levels after removal of smear with EDTA, after albumin soaking, and after application of the desensitizing agents. Two desensitizer-treated and rinsed specimens of each group were examined by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) for surface remnants. RESULTS: Comparatively large standard deviations of the mean EDTA reference and albumin soaked samples permeability values refected the differences of the dentin substrates. The mean chemiluminescence values of specimen treated with GDL and GDG, respectively, were signifcantly reduced after topical application of the desensitizing agents on albumin-soaked dentin. The effects of GDL and GDG on permeability were not signifcantly different. Treated specimens showed no surface remnants after rinsing. CONCLUSIONS: The experimental desensitizer gel formulation reduced dentin permeability as effectively as the original Gluma® Desensitizer solution.Faculdade De Odontologia De Bauru - USP2011-04-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1678-77572011000200011Journal of Applied Oral Science v.19 n.2 2011reponame:Journal of applied oral science (Online)instname:Universidade de São Paulo (USP)instacron:USP10.1590/S1678-77572011000200011info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessIshihata,HiroshiFinger,Werner JKanehira,MasafumiShimauchi,HidetoshiKomatsu,Masashieng2011-05-02T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S1678-77572011000200011Revistahttp://www.scielo.br/jaosPUBhttps://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.php||jaos@usp.br1678-77651678-7757opendoar:2011-05-02T00:00Journal of applied oral science (Online) - Universidade de São Paulo (USP)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv In vitro dentin permeability after application of Gluma® desensitizer as aqueous solution or aqueous fumed silica dispersion
title In vitro dentin permeability after application of Gluma® desensitizer as aqueous solution or aqueous fumed silica dispersion
spellingShingle In vitro dentin permeability after application of Gluma® desensitizer as aqueous solution or aqueous fumed silica dispersion
Ishihata,Hiroshi
Denting desensitizing agents
Gluma Desensitizer
Glutaraldehyde
Dentinal fuid
Dentin permeability
Luminescence
title_short In vitro dentin permeability after application of Gluma® desensitizer as aqueous solution or aqueous fumed silica dispersion
title_full In vitro dentin permeability after application of Gluma® desensitizer as aqueous solution or aqueous fumed silica dispersion
title_fullStr In vitro dentin permeability after application of Gluma® desensitizer as aqueous solution or aqueous fumed silica dispersion
title_full_unstemmed In vitro dentin permeability after application of Gluma® desensitizer as aqueous solution or aqueous fumed silica dispersion
title_sort In vitro dentin permeability after application of Gluma® desensitizer as aqueous solution or aqueous fumed silica dispersion
author Ishihata,Hiroshi
author_facet Ishihata,Hiroshi
Finger,Werner J
Kanehira,Masafumi
Shimauchi,Hidetoshi
Komatsu,Masashi
author_role author
author2 Finger,Werner J
Kanehira,Masafumi
Shimauchi,Hidetoshi
Komatsu,Masashi
author2_role author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Ishihata,Hiroshi
Finger,Werner J
Kanehira,Masafumi
Shimauchi,Hidetoshi
Komatsu,Masashi
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Denting desensitizing agents
Gluma Desensitizer
Glutaraldehyde
Dentinal fuid
Dentin permeability
Luminescence
topic Denting desensitizing agents
Gluma Desensitizer
Glutaraldehyde
Dentinal fuid
Dentin permeability
Luminescence
description OBJECTIVES: To assess and to compare the effects of Gluma® Desensitizer (GDL) with an experimental glutaraldehyde and HEMA containing fumed silica dispersion (GDG) on dentin permeability using a chemiluminous tracer penetration test. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty disc-shaped dentin specimens were dissected from extracted human third molars. The dentin specimens were mounted in a split chamber device for determination of permeability under liquid pressure using a photochemical method. Ten specimens were randomly selected and allocated to the evaluation groups Gluma® Desensitizer as aqueous solution and glutaraldehyde/HEMA as fumed silica dispersion, respectively. Dentin disc permeability was determined at two pressure levels after removal of smear with EDTA, after albumin soaking, and after application of the desensitizing agents. Two desensitizer-treated and rinsed specimens of each group were examined by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) for surface remnants. RESULTS: Comparatively large standard deviations of the mean EDTA reference and albumin soaked samples permeability values refected the differences of the dentin substrates. The mean chemiluminescence values of specimen treated with GDL and GDG, respectively, were signifcantly reduced after topical application of the desensitizing agents on albumin-soaked dentin. The effects of GDL and GDG on permeability were not signifcantly different. Treated specimens showed no surface remnants after rinsing. CONCLUSIONS: The experimental desensitizer gel formulation reduced dentin permeability as effectively as the original Gluma® Desensitizer solution.
publishDate 2011
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2011-04-01
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1678-77572011000200011
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1678-77572011000200011
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 10.1590/S1678-77572011000200011
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv text/html
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Faculdade De Odontologia De Bauru - USP
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Faculdade De Odontologia De Bauru - USP
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Journal of Applied Oral Science v.19 n.2 2011
reponame:Journal of applied oral science (Online)
instname:Universidade de São Paulo (USP)
instacron:USP
instname_str Universidade de São Paulo (USP)
instacron_str USP
institution USP
reponame_str Journal of applied oral science (Online)
collection Journal of applied oral science (Online)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Journal of applied oral science (Online) - Universidade de São Paulo (USP)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv ||jaos@usp.br
_version_ 1748936436602634240