ArticleRestorative dentistry & endodontics2026
Comparative evaluation of dentinal tubule occlusion by desensitizing agents after tooth bleaching: an in vitro study.
Article in Restorative dentistry & endodontics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objectives: : This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of three commercially available desensitizing agents in occluding dentinal tubules, which may help reduce tooth sensitivity following a bleaching treatment. Methods: Twenty healthy human third molars were utilized in this investigation. The samples were prepared by transversely sectioning 2.5 mm of the crowns to expose the dentin. They were initially treated with 15% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid gel for 4 minutes, followed by application of Perfect Bleach (VOCO GmbH) bleaching agent (16% carbamide peroxide) for 2 hours. The samples were randomly allocated into four groups (n = 5), each receiving one of the following treatments: group 1: No treatment (control), group 2: treated with UltraEZ (Ultradent Products Inc.,), containing potassium nitrate and sodium fluoride, group 3: treated with Perfect Protect (VOCO GmbH), also containing potassium nitrate and sodium fluoride and group 4: treated with TheraSol Whitening & Sensitive (ABC Kinitron IKE), containing strontium acetate and sodium monofluorophosphate. Subsequently, the specimens were examined using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy to evaluate dentin tubule occlusion. Results: SEM observations showed no occlusion of dentin tubules in the control group, whereas groups 2 to 4 exhibited significant occlusion. The most effective treatment was Perfect Protect (p < 0.05), while UltraEZ and TheraSol Whitening & Sensitive demonstrated similar effectiveness, with no statistically significant difference between them (p > 0.05). Conclusions: The tested desensitizing agents effectively occluded dentin tubules to a considerable extent. Differences in their effectiveness were attributed to variations in their formulations.
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.