Oral Health and Dental Management

Abstract

Comparative Assessment of Two Dentin Desensitizers for Dentin Tubule Occlusion and Cytological Safety

Qotoof Kefah Alsenan*, Deepak Mehta, Zahi Badran, Betul Rahman and Soumya Aravind

Objectives: The objectives of this in vitro study were to compare the occlusion profile and gingival safety of Predicta™ Bioactive Desensitizer (PBD, parkell, Edgewood, NY, USA), a methacrylate-free, nanohydroxyapatite-based desensitizer with Gluma® desensitizer liquid (GLU, Heraeus Kulzer, Germany).

Materials and methods: In this study, occlusal surfaces were prepared from 30 caries-free human molars and were randomly allocated to three groups each consisting of 10 samples. Samples in group A (n=10), group B (n=10) were treated with predicta™ bioactive desensitizer, gluma^® desensitizer liquid. Group C (n=10) was the control group and samples in this group were left immersed in artificial saliva. Micromorphological analysis using scanning electron microscope was performed to assess tubular occlusion. A blinded reviewers independently scored the level of tubule occlusion as type 0 (no occlusion; score 0), type 1 (partial occlusion; ≤ 25%; score 1), type 2 (partial occlusion; 25-75%; score 2), type 3 (complete occlusion; >75%; score 3). Furthermore, the gingival safety of predicta™ bioactive desensitizer and gluma® desensitizer liquid was assessed using the 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide (XTT) test. Means were compared using One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). Post-hoc comparisons were made using Tukey test. A 2-sided test with p<0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.

Results: The mean occlusion scores computed from micromorphological analysis using scanning electron microscope in group A (predicta; n=10) and group B (gluma; n=10) were 1.6 ± 1.07 (p<0.001 vs. control) and 2.3 ±1.05 (p<0.001 vs. control), respectively. Results of the XTT test indicated that the percentage of cell viability with varying concentrations of predicta bioactive desensitizer at 1, 24 and 48 hours remained significantly higher as compared to gluma® desensitizer liquid (p<0.001) at 1 hour, 24 hours and 48 hours after treatment.

Conclusions: The occlusive efficacy of predicta bioactive desensitizer seems to be comparable to that of gluma desensitizer liquid. On the other hand, predicta bioactive desensitizer may be safer to the gingival milieu.

Published Date: 2024-09-30; Received Date: 2023-04-28