Due to the low quality , small sample sizes or lack of adequate reporting of the outcome data , the evidence is inadequate to cl aim or refute a difference in postoperative sensitivity between different dental liners .
Since August 2009 , members of the Primary Care Dentistry Research Forum ( www.dentistry research .org ) have taken part in an online vote to identify questions in day-to-day practice that they felt most needed to be answered with conclusive research .
Clinical evaluation of a resin-based desensitizing agent and a self-etching adhesive on the reduction of postoperative sensitivity of amalgam restorations.
AIM The aim of this r and omized , double blind clinical trial was to compare three lining material s ( Adper Prompt L-Pop , VivaSens , and Copalite ) versus unlined restorations on postoperative cold sensitivity of class I amalgam restorations . METHODS AND MATERIAL S Potential subjects were screened for the presence of four initial class I carious lesions on posterior teeth . Each tooth was assigned to treatments according to a r and omized block design . After cavity preparation , teeth were lined with either VivaSens , Adper Prompt L-Pop , or Copalite , and one tooth remained unlined and served as a control . The cavities were filled with high copper amalgam ( Oralloy ) . The time taken for a subject to respond to a st and ardized cold stimulus ( CRM ) was recorded at baseline , 24 hours , one week , and one month after treatment . Participants filled out a self-report question naire at each time point . Data was gathered by analysis of variance ( ANOVA ) and Duncan Multiple Comparisons tests ( alpha=0.05 ) . RESULTS Twenty subjects participated in this study . Comparisons within each group found no significant reduction in mean CRM for the Adper Prompt L-Pop group ( P>0.05 ) , but a significant difference in mean CRM for the VivaSens group was observed at one week and one month intervals after restoration ( P<0.05 ) . Copalite and the unlined groups showed significant mean CRM reductions after one day ( P<0.05 ) . No significant differences between groups receiving Adper Prompt L-Pop and Copalite were found at any time point ( P>0.05 ) . VivaSens showed more cold sensitivity than Adper Prompt L-Pop at one week and one month recalls ( P<0.05 ) , while the most cold sensitivity was found in the unlined group . CONCLUSION Adper Prompt L-Pop and Copalite reduced postoperative sensitivity to cold more than VivaSens and unlined groups at all assessment time points , 24 hours , one week , and one-month post treatment . The subjects receiving Copalite , VivaSens , and unlined restorations experienced greater sensitivity to cold at one month compared to baseline , while subjects receiving the Adper Prompt L-Pop liner experienced no greater sensitivity to cold from baseline to one month . CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE Adper Prompt L-Pop as a liner under spherical high copper amalgam successfully reduced cold postoperative sensitivity
Due to the low quality , small sample sizes or lack of adequate reporting of the outcome data , the evidence is inadequate to cl aim or refute a difference in postoperative sensitivity between different dental liners .
Since August 2009 , members of the Primary Care Dentistry Research Forum ( www.dentistry research .org ) have taken part in an online vote to identify questions in day-to-day practice that they felt most needed to be answered with conclusive research .