Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28484578›Full record

ArticleThe open dentistry journal2017

Evaluation of Five Different Desensitizers: A Comparative Dentin Permeability and SEM Investigation

Nasibe Aycan Yilmaz, Ertan Ertas, Hasan Orucoğlu

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Dentinal tubule occlusion using Er:YAG Laser: an in vitro study.Journal of applied oral science : revista FOB · 2021
    Article
  6. Evaluation and Comparison of Efficacy of GlumaOpen access Macedonian journal of medical sciences · 2019
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Nasibe Aycan YilmazDepartment of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Adnan Menderes, Aydin, Turkey.
Ertan ErtasDepartment of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Ondokuz Mayis, Samsun, Turkey.
Hasan OrucoğluDepartment of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Abant Izzet Baysal, Bolu, Turkey.
Adnan Menderes University · TRBolu Abant İzzet Baysal University · TROndokuz Mayıs University · TR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Dentin permeabilityDentin sensitivityGluma desensitizer powergelScanning electron microscopy

Identifiers

PMID28484578
PMCPMC5396078
OpenAlexW2576958161

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.