Esmahan Okur, Dr Dt, Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Karadeniz Technical University, Ortahisar/Trabzon, Turkey.
*Güneš Bulut Eyüboğlu, DDS, PhD, Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Karadeniz Technical University, Ortahisar/Trabzon, Turkey.
Oper Dent. 2022 Jan 1;47(1):E35-E51. doi: 10.2341/21-086-L.
The purposes of this in vitro study were to evaluate the tubule plugging efficiencies and effects on the surface roughness of dentin of different dentin desensitizing agents (DDAs; Teethmate Desensitizer, Kuraray; Gluma Desensitizer, Kulzer; Clinpro White Varnish, 3M ESPE; Enamelast, Ultradent) and the Er,Cr:YSGG laser (Biolase, Waterlase), both alone and in combination with DDAs, after application and after an erosion-abrasion cycle.
For surface roughness examinations, superficial buccal dentin specimens were divided into 10 groups: the control, Teethmate Desensitizer, Gluma Desensitizer, Enamelast, Clipro White Varnish, Er,Cr:YSGG Laser, Teethmate Desensitizer-Laser, Gluma Desensitizer-Laser, and Enamelast-Laser, and Clinpro White Varnish-Laser groups. Profilometric analyses and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) examinations were performed after applications and after a 5-day erosive-abrasive cycle. For the statistical analysis of surface roughness measurements, 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), 1-way ANOVA, and Tukey post hoc test were used.
Among the treatments, only DDAs alone did not cause increase in surface roughness after application. All of the laser applications increased the surface roughness of dentin, and after the erosion-abrasion cycle, all of the test groups had increased surface roughness. However, SEM images showed that morphological changes were less frequently observed in all of the experimental groups than in the control group. In addition, all of the laser-DDA combinations had stronger tubule occlusion effects than did DDAs alone, even after erosion-abrasion.
All of the test treatments showed protective effects on dentin surfaces against the negative effects of erosion-abrasion. The addition of the laser to DDA applications increased tubular plugging efficiencies of DDAs, and the tubule plugs of the combination treatments were resistant to the erosion-abrasion cycle.
本体外研究的目的是评估不同脱敏剂（Teethmate Desensitizer，Kuraray；Gluma Desensitizer，Kulzer；Clinpro White Varnish，3M ESPE；Enamelast，Ultradent）和 Er,Cr:YSGG 激光（Biolase，Waterlase）单独及联合使用后对牙本质表面粗糙度的影响。
对于表面粗糙度检查，将颊面浅层牙本质标本分为 10 组：对照组、Teethmate Desensitizer 组、Gluma Desensitizer 组、Enamelast 组、Clinpro White Varnish 组、Er,Cr:YSGG 激光组、Teethmate Desensitizer-激光组、Gluma Desensitizer-激光组、Enamelast-激光组和 Clinpro White Varnish-激光组。应用后和 5 天侵蚀磨损循环后进行轮廓分析和扫描电子显微镜（SEM）检查。为了对表面粗糙度测量结果进行统计分析，采用了 2 因素方差分析（ANOVA）、1 因素方差分析和 Tukey 事后检验。
在所有处理中，只有单独使用脱敏剂不会导致应用后表面粗糙度增加。所有激光应用均增加了牙本质的表面粗糙度，在侵蚀磨损循环后，所有测试组的表面粗糙度均增加。然而，SEM 图像显示，与对照组相比，所有实验组的形态变化都较少。此外，与单独使用脱敏剂相比，所有激光-脱敏剂组合均具有更强的管腔阻塞效果，即使在侵蚀磨损后也是如此。
所有测试治疗均对牙本质表面具有抗侵蚀磨损的保护作用。激光与脱敏剂联合应用增加了脱敏剂的管状阻塞效率，并且联合处理的管腔堵塞物对侵蚀磨损循环具有抵抗力。
