ArticleCureus2024
Efficacy and Durability of Two Desensitizing Agents on Dentinal Tubule Occlusion: An In Vitro Study.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Dentin Hypersensitivity Treated With Diode Laser and Aminefluoride: A Randomized Clinical Trial.International journal of dentistry · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDentin hypersensitivity (DH) is a common condition caused by exposed dentinal tubules, often requiring treatment with desensitizing agents. This in vitro study conducted at Narayana Dental College and Hospital (Nellore, AP, IND) between January 2022 and March 2022, aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of two desensitizing agents, SDI Riva Star (SDI Ltd., Bayswater, VIC, AUS) and Gluma Desensitizer (Kulzer, Hanau, DEU) in occluding dentinal tubules and their long-term durability following simulated brushing. MATERIALS AND
methodsFifty maxillary premolar specimens were sectioned and treated with 17% ethylenediamine tetraacetic acid (EDTA) to expose dentinal tubules. They were divided into three groups: (I) a control group, (II) SDI Riva Star, and (III) Gluma Desensitizer. Tubule occlusion was assessed using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) immediately after application and after one month of brushing.
resultsBoth test agents occluded the dentinal tubules effectively (SEM score 1), with no significant difference between SDI Riva Star and Gluma Desensitizer immediately post-application. However, after 30 days of brushing, SDI Riva Star demonstrated superior durability, with significantly better occlusion scores than Gluma Desensitizer (p<0.01).
conclusionBoth SDI Riva Star and Gluma Desensitizer were effective in occluding dentinal tubules, but SDI Riva Star showed greater durability over time, making it a more effective option for long-term desensitization.
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.