Desensitizers in Reducing Post Tooth Preparation Sensitivity for a Fixed Dental Prosthesis
Condition: Dentin Hypersensitivity
MeSH terms: Dentin Sensitivity; Hypersensitivity
Study type: Interventional

Summary: 
      The main purpose of the present study was to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of three
      kinds of commercially available desensitizing agents: Gluma, Sheildforce plus, and Telio CS
      desensitizers in reducing the pre- and post-cementation sensitivity for full coverage
      restorations.
    

Detailed description: 
      During the first visit, standard prosthodontic principles were followed to prepare the teeth
      for complete coverage restorations using high-speed handpiece and copious water-coolant
      spray. After the effect of local anesthesia was worn off, baseline sensitivity (first
      reading) was recorded on the VAS using Cold Test and Electric Pulp Test (EPT) . Final
      impression using addition silicon (Virtual from Ivoclar Vivadent, Amherst, NY) was made, and
      the provisional prosthesis was fabricated using Protemp TM II (3M ESPE, Germany), by the
      direct method using polyvinyl siloxane putty (ExpressTM STD, 3M ESPE) matrix. The first
      application of desensitizer was done then on the desensitizer group according to the
      manufacturer's recommendation. The fabricated provisional prosthesis was cemented with
      non-eugenol provisional cement Tempbond NE (Rely XTM TempNE, 3M ESPE, Germany) and the
      patient was recalled for the metal try-in. During the second visit, the provisional
      prosthesis was removed and the patient's response to Cold Test and EPT was again recorded on
      VAS (second reading) and the metal try-in was carried out. The second application of
      desensitizing agent was done, the provisional prosthesis was re-cemented, and the patient was
      recalled for final cementation. During the third visit, the provisional prosthesis was
      removed, the patient's response to Cold Test and EPT was again recorded (third reading), and
      the third application of desensitizing agent was done before cementing the final prosthesis
      with G-cem resin cement. The control group had similar clinical steps except for the
      application of desensitizer, Evaluation of sensitivity level Subjective evaluation of pain
      produced by cold and electrical stimulus was done, for checking pre-cementation sensitivity.
      Before starting the procedure, patients were explained about the Cold Test, EPT, and the VAS
      scores.
    

Intervention name(s): Desensitizers
Intervention type(s): Biological
Intervention description(s): The main aims and objectives of the present study were to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of three commercially available desensitizing agents: Gluma (Hareus Kulzer), Sheildforce Plus (Tokuyama), and Telio CS (Ivoclar Vivadent) desensitizer in reducing the pre- and post-cementation sensitivity for full coverage restorations.
Allocation: Randomized
Intervention model: Parallel Assignment
Intervention model description: The present study was designed as a single-center, parallel, double-blind, randomized, controlled clinical trial
Masking: Triple (Participant, Investigator, Outcomes Assessor)
Primary purpose: Treatment
Keywords: Pre-cementation sensitivity, Desensitizers