jkap The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics J Korean Acad Prosthodont 0301-2875 2005-3789 The Korean Academy of Prosthodontics 10.4047/jkap.2014.52.3.165 jkap-52-165 Original Article The effects of desensitizing agents, bonding resin and tooth brushing on dentin permeability, in vitro HongSeung-Woo ParkNo-Je ParkYoung-Bum LeeKeun-Woo ∗ Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University, Seoul, Republic of Korea Corresponding Author: Keun-Woo Lee Department of Prodthodontics, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University 50 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, 120-752, Republic of Korea +82 2 2228 3158: e-mail, KWLEE@yuhs.ac 22014 922014 523 165176 08102013 16042014 17042014 Copyright © 2014 The Korean Academy of Prosthodontics 2014 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Abstract Purpose

The effects of desensitizing agent are often for a short duration. One of the reasons is believed to be wear of desensitizing agent by tooth brushing. To reduce the wear and make the duration longer, dental bonding resin was applied and the changes of dentin permeability after toothbrushing were measured.

 Materials and methods

Extracted teeth free from caries were chosen. Coronal dentin discs with thickness of 1 mm were prepared. Using the split chamber device developed by Pashely, hydraulic conductance and scanning electron microscope images (SEM) were compared and contrasted before and immediately after the application of desensitizing agent and bonding resin and then after equivalent tooth brushing of 1 week, 2 weeks, and 6 weeks. Four commercially available desensitizing agents were used in this study; they were All-Bond 2, Seal & Protect, Gluma, and MS Coat. And Dentin/Enamel Bonding resin (Bisco Inc.) was used. The results of this study are as follows.

 Results

On all specimens, the hydraulic conductance decreased after the application of tooth desensitizing agent and bonding resin. Compared with the specimens treated only with desensitizer, the specimens treated with All-Bond 2, Gluma, MS Coat and plus D/E bonding resin had a little increase in hydraulic conductance after 1, 2 and 6-week tooth brushing. In case of Seal & Protect, the specimens showed the same result only after 6-week tooth brushing. On examination of SEM, the dentinal tubule diameter had decreased after treatment of desensitizing agents and bonding resin. And the specimens treated with All-Bond2, Seal&Protect, Gluma, MS Coat and plus D/E bonding resin had an significant decrease in diameter of dentinal tubule after 6-week tooth brushing.

 Conclusion

According to the results of this study, it is effective to use bonding resin after application of desensitizer in reducing the wear by tooth brushing and making the duration longer. In this study, just 6-week tooth brushing was performed, and it is not enough to regard it as a long-term data. So further study is needed and more perfect method for treating dentin hypersensitivity should be developed.

 Dentin sensitivity Gluma desensitizer Tooth brushing Dentin-Bonding agents REFERENCES Berman LH Dentinal sensation and hypersensitivity. A review of mechanisms and treatment alternatives J Periodontol 198556 21622 Pashley DH Dynamics of the pulpo-dentin complex Crit Rev Oral Biol Med 19967 10433 Bra¨nnstro¨m M Sensitivity of dentine Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 196621 51726 Ishikawa S A clinico-histological study on the hypersensitivity of dentin Kokubyo Gakkai Zasshi 196936 27898 Absi EG Addy M Adams D Dentine hypersensitivity. A study of the patency of dentinal tubules in sensitive and non-sensitive cervical dentine J Clin Periodontol 198714 2804 Holland GR Morphological features of dentine and pulp related to dentine sensitivity Arch Oral Biol 199439 3S11S Mjo¨r IA Histologic studies of human coronal dentine following the insertion of various materials in experimentally prepared cavities Arch Oral Biol 196712 44152 Camps J Pizant S Dejou J Franquin JC Effects of desensitizing agents on human dentin permeability Am J Dent 199811 28690 Lee JW Shim JS Lee KW The effects of desensitizing agents and tooth brushing on dentin permeability, in vitro J Korean Acad Prosthodont 200139 20819 Outhwaite WC McKenzie DM Pashley DH A versatile split-chamber device for studying dentin permeability J Dent Res 197453 1503 Bra¨nnstro¨m M Linde′n LA Astro¨m A The hydrodynamics of the dental tubule and of pulp fluid. A discussion of its significance in relation to dentinal sensitivity Caries Res 19671 3107 Pashley DH Mechanisms of dentin sensitivity Dent Clin North Am 199034 44973 Dippel HW Borggreven JM Hoppenbrouwers PM Morphology and permeability of the dentinal smear layer J Prosthet Dent 198452 65762 Greenhill JD Pashley DH The effects of desensitizing agents on the hydraulic conductance of human dentin in vitro J Dent Res 198160 68698 Levin MP Yearwood LL Carpenter WN The desensitizing effect of calcium hydroxide and magnesium hydroxide on hypersensitive dentin Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 197335 7416 Lukomsky EH Fluoride therapy for exposed dentin and alveolar atrophy J Dent Res 194120 64959 Bra¨nnstro¨m M Nordenvall KJ Bacterial penetration, pulpal reaction and the inner surface of Concise enamel bond. Composite fillings in etched and unetched cavities J Dent Res 197857 310 Bra¨nnstro¨m M Johnson G Nordenvall KJ Transmission and control of dentinal pain: resin impregnation for the desensitization of dentin J Am Dent Assoc 197999 6128 Tanoue N Matsumura H Atsuta M Wear and surface roughness of current prosthetic composites after toothbrush/dentifrice abrasion J Prosthet Dent 200084 937 Mandikos MN McGivney GP Davis E Bush PJ Carter JM A comparison of the wear resistance and hardness of indirect composite resins J Prosthet Dent 200185 38695 Prati C What is the clinical relevance of in vitro dentine permeability tests? J Dent 199422 838 Pashley DH Andringa HJ Derkson GD Derkson ME Kalathoor SR Regional variability in the permeability of human dentine Arch Oral Biol 198732 51923 Ciucchi B Bouillaguet S Holz J Pashley D Dentinal fluid dynamics in human teeth, in vivo J Endod 199521 1914 Andrews SA van Hassel HJ Brown AC A method for determining the physiologic basis of pulp sensory response. A preliminary report J Hosp Dent Pract 19726 4953 Camps J Giustiniani S Dejou J Franquin JC Low versus high pressure for in vitro determination of hydraulic conductance of human dentine Arch Oral Biol 199742 2938 Zhang Y Agee K Pashley DH Pashley EL The effects of Pain-Free Desensitizer on dentine permeability and tubule occlusion over time, in vitro J Clin Periodontol 199825 88491 Figures and Tables

Schematic view of Pashley's device used to measure hydraulic conductance of dentin disc.

Photograph of Pashley's device used to measure hydraulic conductance of dentin disc (A); digital micrometer (B).

Toothbrush abrasion testing machine.

All-Bond® 2 and All-Bond® 2 + Bonding resin: % change values of hydraulic conductance.

Seal & Protect® and Seal & Protect® + Bonding resin: % change values of hydraulic conductance.

Gluma® and Gluma® + Bonding resin: % change values of hydraulic conductance.

MS Coat® and MS Coat® + Bonding resin: % change values of hydraulic conductance.

(A) All-Bond® 2: SEM of dentinal surface after agent treatment, (B) All-Bond® 2: SEM of dentinal surface after 6-week tooth brushing, (C) All-Bond® 2 + Bonding resin: SEM of dentinal surface after agent treatment, (D) All-Bond® 2 + Bonding resin: SEM of dentinal surface after 6-week tooth brushing.

(A) Seal & Protect®: SEM of dentinal surface before agent treatment, (B) Seal & Protect®: SEM of dentinal surface after agent treatment, (C) Seal & Protect®: SEM of dentinal surface after 6-week tooth brushing, (D) Seal & Protect® + Bonding resin: SEM of dentinal surface after 6-week tooth brushing.

(A) Gluma®: SEM of dentinal surface before agent treatment, (B) Gluma®: SEM of dentinal surface after agent treatment, (C) Gluma®: SEM of dentinal surface after 6-week tooth brushing, (D) Gluma® + Bonding resin: SEM of dentinal surface after 6-week tooth brushing.

(A) MS Coat®: SEM of dentinal surface before agent treatment, (B) MS Coat®: SEM of dentinal surface after agent treatment, (C) MS Coat®: SEM of dentinal surface after 6-week tooth brushing, (D) MS Coat® + Bonding resin: SEM of dentinal surface after 6-week tooth brushing.

Desensitizing agents and bonding resin used in this study

Brand Composition Manufacturer
All-Bond 2 desensitizer® ∙ N-tolyglycine-glycidyl methacrylate (NTG-GMA) Bisco Inc., IL, USA
∙ Biphenyl dimenthacrylate (BPDM)
∙ Acetone
Seal & Protect® ∙ PENTA Dentsply Co., Konstanz, Germany
∙ Di, Trimethacrylate
∙ Nanofiller
∙ Acetone
∙ Triclosan
Gluma Desensitizer® ∙ Hydroxyethylmethacrylate (HEMA) Heraeus Kulzer Inc., IN, USA
∙ Glutaraldehyde
∙ Purified water
∙ Mequinol
MS Coat® ∙ Poly-styrene sulfonic acid Sun medical Co., Shiga, Japan
∙ Poly-methyl methacrylate (PMMA)
∙ Oxalic acid
Dentin/Enamel Bonding Resin® ∙ BIS-GMA Bisco Inc., IL, USA
∙ HEMA

Mean of Lp values and % change values

Lp 0 Lp 1 % change 1 (%) Lp 2 % change 2 (%) Lp 3 % change 3 (%) Lp 4 % change 4 (%)
All-Bond 2 11.536 1.258 89.1 5.399 53.2 9.615 16.6 34.552 199.5
All-Bond 2 + Bonding resin 8.379 0.196 97.7 0.132 98.4 0.511 93.9 0.089 98.9
Seal&Protect 7.096 0.260 96.3 0.226 96.8 0.910 87.2 1.995 71.9
Seal&Protect + Bonding resin 12.357 0.255 97.9 0.459 96.3 0.942 92.4 0.232 98.1
Gluma 12.249 1.195 90.2 8.433 31.2 26.175 113.7 34.858 184.6
Gluma + Bonding resin 10.772 0.348 96.8 0.392 96.4 1.060 90.2 1.515 85.9
MS Coat 8.725 1.767 79.8 4.455 48.9 11.713 34.3 13.346 53.0
MS Coat + Bonding resin 14.280 0.478 96.7 1.737 87.8 6.000 58.0 6.259 56.2

Lp: hydraulic conductance of dentin in μ Lcm−2min−1mmHg−1

Comparison of % change values before and after treatment in 8 groups (Wilcoxon signed rank test)

% change 2 - % change 1 % change 3 - % change 2 % change 4 - % change 3
All-Bond 2 0.018∗ 0.018∗ 0.028∗
All-Bond2 + Bonding resin 0.463 0.028∗ 0.018∗
Seal&Protect 0.612 0.018∗ 0.499
Seal&Protect + Bonding resin 0.310 0.028∗ 0.063
Gluma 0.018∗ 0.018∗ 0.398
Gluma + Bonding resin 0.735 0.176 0.612
MS Coat 0.018∗ 0.018∗ 0.091
MS Coat + Bonding resin 0.018∗ 0.018∗ 0.735

P<.05, statistically significant.

Comparison of % change values before and after treatment in 8 groups (Mann-Whitney Test)

% change 1 % change 2 % change 3 % change 4
All-Bond 2® vs. All-Bond 2® + Bonding resin 0.225 0.004∗ 0.013∗ 0.003∗
Seal&Protect® vs. Seal&Protect® + Bonding Resin 0.142 0.848 0.565 0.018∗
Gluma® vs. Gluma® + Bonding resin 0.338 0.035∗ 0.006∗ 0.004∗
MS Coat® vs. MS Coat® + Bonding resin 0.223 0.025∗ 0.048∗ 0.035∗

P<.05, statistically significant.