Oper Dent. 2019 Mar/Apr;44(2):168-177. doi: 10.2341/17-284-L. Epub 2018 Jun 28.
: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of four in-office desensitizing products on dentin tubule occlusion and erosive wear.
: Dentin hypersensitivity was simulated by EDTA application for five minutes. The specimens were randomly allocated into five groups (n=11), according to treatment: No treatment - Control (C), Duraphat (DUR), Desensibilize Nano P (NP), ClinPro XT Varnish (XTV), and ClinPro White Varnish (CWV). They were then submitted to erosive/abrasive cycling for five days. After EDTA, treatment, and cycling, the specimens were analyzed with an environmental scanning electron microscope (ESEM) to verify the number of opened dentin tubules (ODT) which were counted by using ImageJ software, and with a profilometer to determine the surface curvature/loss. ESEM data were analyzed with two-way repeated measure analysis of variance and Tukey tests. For the profilometer, data were analyzed with Kruskal-Wallis, Tukey, and Mann-Whitney tests.
: After treatment, all groups showed lower ODT than the control, without significant differences between them. After cycling, the only group that showed lower ODT than the control was group XTV; however, it did not significantly differ from the other groups. For the profilometric analysis, there were significant differences in SL between the experimental times after treatment and after cycling for all groups ( p<0.05). After cycling, no surface loss was detected in groups DUR and XTV, which presented a significantly different curvature than group NP and the control group, but not from group CWV. Surface loss was detected for the control and groups NP and CWV, without difference among them.
: All desensitizing agents tested presented promising results concerning the obliteration of dentin tubules immediately after treatment. XTV was the only desensitizer capable of preventing the reopening of the tubules after the erosive/abrasive challenges. XTV and DUR presented a protective effect against dentin erosive wear.
本研究旨在评估四种诊室脱敏产品对牙本质小管封闭和侵蚀磨损的影响。
通过 EDTA 应用五分钟来模拟牙本质过敏。根据处理方法，将标本随机分为五组（n=11）：无处理-对照（C）、Duraphat（DUR）、Desensibilize Nano P（NP）、ClinPro XT 釉质漆（XTV）和 ClinPro White 釉质漆（CWV）。然后，它们被提交进行五天的侵蚀/磨损循环。在 EDTA、处理和循环后，用环境扫描电子显微镜（ESEM）分析标本，用 ImageJ 软件计数打开的牙本质小管数量（ODT），并用轮廓仪确定表面曲率/损失。使用双向重复测量方差分析和 Tukey 检验分析 ESEM 数据。对于轮廓仪，使用 Kruskal-Wallis、Tukey 和 Mann-Whitney 检验分析数据。
处理后，所有组的 ODT 均低于对照组，但彼此之间无显著差异。循环后，只有 XTV 组的 ODT 低于对照组，但与其他组无显著差异。对于轮廓仪分析，处理后和循环后的实验时间之间，所有组的 SL 均存在显著差异（p<0.05）。循环后，DUR 和 XTV 组未检测到表面损失，它们的曲率与 NP 组和对照组有显著差异，但与 CWV 组无差异。对照组和 NP 和 CWV 组检测到表面损失，但彼此之间无差异。
所有测试的脱敏剂在处理后立即对牙本质小管的闭塞均表现出良好的效果。XTV 是唯一能够防止小管在侵蚀/磨损挑战后重新开放的脱敏剂。XTV 和 DUR 对牙本质侵蚀磨损具有保护作用。
