Study On The Effect Of Three Desensitizers On The Sealing Of Dentin Tubules And The Bonding Of Fillings

Objectives In clinic,desensitizer is the first choice for the treatment of dentin hypersensitivity.When the severe abrasion and wear caused by wedge-shaped defect of tooth neck and night molars further aggravate the sensitive symptoms,dentin bonding repair is often needed after desensitization.At present,there is little information about the effect of different desensitizers on dentin bonding properties.To compare the sealing effect of three different desensitizers(Gluma,Clinpro^TMXT Varnish,profluorid varnish)on the surface of dentin tubules.To evaluate the therapeutic effect of desensitizer.The effect of desensitization treatment on shear strength of Singlebond^TMUniversal adhesive and edge microleakage after resin filling.It provides reference for the treatment of dentin hypersensitivity and filling after desensitization.Methods 1 Preparation of 40 dentin discs with a thickness of about 2mm,Gluma etching agent for working face for 20 s,randomly divided into four groups?n=10?: The negative control group was treated with distilled water for 1 minute,the rest were coated with Gluma,Clinpro^TMXT Varnish and profluorid varnish respectively.Under 2000 times of scanning electron microscope,the shape of dentin disc was observed.After taking photos at random,the average diameter of dentin tubules and the total area of all open dentin tubules were analyzed quantitatively in Image Pro Plus 6.0.2 60 teeth were divided into four groups?n=15?: negative control group,the rest were coated with three desensitizers Gluma,Clinpro^TMXT Varnish and profluorid varnish.After coating Singlebond^TMUniversal adhesive,3M Z350 resin column with inner diameter of 3mm and height of 3mm was bonded.The prepared model was fixed in the super anhydrite.Put it into the universal testing machine,bear the compression load at the speed of 0.5mm/min,and record the shear strength.3 72 teeth were randomly divided into four groups?n=18?: negative control group,the rest were coated with three desensitizers Gluma,Clinpro^TMXT Varnish and profluorid varnish.3M Z350 resin for cavity filling after using Singlebond^TMUniversal.Three samples from each group were selected to observe the bonding interface by SEM.The remaining samples were subjected to aging test?1000 cycles between 5 ° C and 55 ° C water bath?,dye penetration test and microleakage classification of each group were recorded.Results 1 Quantitative analysis of desensitizer sealing dentinal tubules:test with one way ANOVA.Comparison of the mean diameter of open dentinal tubules in four groups,F= 1282.470,P<0.05,the difference was statistically significant.SNK test was used for comparison,negative control group?2.311±0.147 ?m?,the group of profluorid varnish?1.037±0.065 ?m?and the group of Gluma?1.525±0.071?m?were higher than group of Clinpro^TMXT Varnish?0.005±0.002 ?m?;negative control group and Gluma group were larger than profluorid varnish group;negative control group was larger than Gluma group,and the difference between groups was statistically significant?P < 0.05?.The total area of open dentin tubules in four groups was compared as a whole F= 2028.933,P<0.05,the difference was statistically significant.Negative control group?2824.548±107.982?m²?,profluorid varnish group?1050.521±78.434?m²?and Gluma group?1655.122±96.768?m²?were higher than Clinpro^TMXT Varnish group?14.466±1.024?m²?;negative control group and Gluma group were larger than profluorid varnish group;negative control group was larger than Gluma group,and the difference between groups was statistically significant?P < 0.05?.2 Shear strength test results: single factor analysis of variance was used for test and overall comparison F=49.08?P<0.05?,the difference is statistically significant.SNK method was used to compare the two groups,the negative control group?22.77±1.11 MPa?was larger than Clinpro^TMXT Varnish group?18.03±1.41 MPa?,profluorid varnish group?20.96±1.14 MPa?.Gluma group?22.15±1.29 MPa?was larger than Clinpro^TMXT Varnish group?18.03±1.41 MPa?,profluorid varnish group?20.96±1.14 MPa?.Profluorid varnish group?20.96±1.14 MPa?was larger than Clinpro^TMXT Varnish.The difference between the groups was statistically significant?P< 0.05?.3 Microleakage results: in the four groups,there were different degrees of staining and microleakage.There was no significant difference between the microleakage values of occlusal formula and gingival formula by Krukal-Wallis test of multiple samples comparison?occlusal formula ?2 =1.975,P>0.05;gingival formula ?2=2.567,P>0.05?.The microleakage of occlusal and gingival prescriptions in each group was compared by Mann-Whitney U test,there was no significant difference between the two groups in occlusal and gingival prescriptions?P >0.05?Conclusions 1 Three desensitizers can seal dentin tubules immediately,Clinpro^TMXT varnish has the best sealing effect,profluorid varnish is the second and better than Gluma.2 The adhesive strength of 3M Singlebond^TMUniversal will be reduced after coating Clinpro^TMXT Varnish and profluorid varnish,and will not be affected after coating Gluma.After desensitization of teeth,filling treatment is needed.Gluma can be selected as desensitizer.3 After using three desensitizers,Singlebond^TMUniversal was closely bonded to dentin,but it could not avoid microleakage at the edge of the filling.Figure11;Table5;Reference 110...