ArticleThe open dentistry journal2017
Evaluation of Five Different Desensitizers: A Comparative Dentin Permeability and SEM Investigation
Article in The open dentistry journal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Biomimetic Remineralization Strategies for Dentin Bond Stability-Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Pooled it
- In vitro study on the bacteriostatic effect of Amoxicillin-loaded Nano-hydroxyapatite and its capability in occluding dentinal tubules.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Comparison of the Effects of Gluma Gel, Sensodyne Repair and Protect Toothpaste, and an 810 nm Low Power Diode Laser on the Closure of Dentinal Tubules: AnJournal of lasers in medical sciences · 2024Article
- Bioactive glass versus Arginine dentifrices on the reduction of dentin permeability and acid tolerance.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2021Article
- Dentinal tubule occlusion using Er:YAG Laser: an in vitro study.Journal of applied oral science : revista FOB · 2021Article
- Evaluation and Comparison of Efficacy of GlumaOpen access Macedonian journal of medical sciences · 2019Article
- Effect of erosive and abrasive stress on sealing ability of different desensitizers: In-vitro study.PloS one · 2019Article
- Evaluation of the effects of Er:YAG laser, Nd:YAG laser, and two different desensitizers on dentin permeability: in vitro study.Lasers in medical science · 2018Article
- Performance of a bioglass-based dentine desensitizer under lactid acid exposition: an in-vitro study.BMC oral health · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectiveThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and durability of five different dentin desensitizers (Gluma Desensitizer Powergel, Bifluorid 12, Gluma Self Etch Bond, D/Sense Crystal, Nupro Sensodyne Prophylaxis Paste with Novamin) on tubule occlusion and dentin permeability reduction
methodThe quantitative changes in permeability of 100 dentin discs were measured after desensitizer treatments and following post-treatments of 6% citric acid challenge for 1 min or immersion in artificial saliva for 24 hours under hydrostatic pressure generated by a computerised fluid filtration meter. Qualitative SEM analyses were also carried out.
resultsDentin permeability decreased after desensitizer application in all groups. Nevertheless, only the difference between 'Gluma Self Etch Bond' and 'Nupro Sensodyne Prophylaxis Paste with Novamin' groups was significantly different (p<0.05). Dentin permeability increased significantly after post-treatments (p<0.05). There was no statistically difference among the citric acid-subgroups (p>0.05). Of all the artificial saliva-subgroups, only the difference between 'D/Sense Crystal' and 'Bifluorid 12' was significantly different (p<0.05). In SEM analysis, morphological changes were detected on the dentin surface and within the tubules following desensitizer treatments and post-treatments.
conclusionAll the desensitizers significantly reduced dentin permeability by changing the morphology of the dentin surface and/or dentinal tubules. Following post-treatments, there was some reduction in the efficacy of the desensitizers which was represented by the reduction in permeability values. SEM analysis revealed some physical changes in the dentin structure which can partly give an explanation to the reduced efficacy of tested desensitizers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.