None listed
Conditions
Brief summary
The purpose of this study is to compare the efficacy of the 2 bonding agents in reducing or eliminating dentin hypersensitivity as evaluated by the changes in visual analog scale. An inclusion criteria and an exclusion criteria were set accordingly and followed during patient selection. Study hypothesis: 1. Null Hypothesis There is no difference between the two groups in dentin hypersensitivity after immediate dentinal sealing 2. Alternate Hypothesis There is a difference between the two groups in dentinal hypersensitivity after immediate dentinal sealing
Interventions
compare the efficacy of two different bonding agents in reducing or elimination dentinal hypersensitivity as evaluated by changes in visual analog scale. The type of bonding agents used in this study are the following: 1. GC premio bond (GC America) 2. Zipbond (SDI) 3. Coltene bonding agent This was a randomized control trial conducted after the approval of the ethical committee of Islamic International Dental College, Riphah International University. Patients were divided into three groups based on the bonding agent and technique used. Group A utilized G-Premio Bond with steps varying by enamel quality: good enamel received beveling and selective etch, poor enamel selective etch only, and no enamel self-etch. Group B followed identical steps but used ZIPBOND as the bonding agent. Group C involved direct composite placement with Coltene bonding agent. Sensitivity was assessed pre-treatment, recorded at intervals up to one week, and evaluated during the second appointment using a standardized air blast and a visual analog scale. Following preparation, selective etching was done using 37% phosphoric acid for 10 seconds. Prior to use, the bonding agent bottle was shaken thoroughly. The bonding agent was applied immediately, using a bonding brush head fully soaked in the bonding agent to make sure the quantity remains the same (a quantity of 1 ml bonding agent was maintained), left undisturbed for 10 seconds, and then dried using oil-free air at a maintained pressure of 60 psi for 5 seconds. Another layer of the (dentin bonding agent) DBA was applied and the same protocol was followed. It was ensured that each surface had achieved at least 3 applications of the DBA under the same protocol. A thin, glossy adhesive film that remained stationary under continued air pressure was considered the desired result. The bonding agent was then light-cured for 10 seconds using an LED curing unit, with the tip maintained at a distance of less than 10 mm. The same protocol was followed for all the groups. This procedure took an approximate of 45 minutes per patient appointment time. All procedures carried out at Islamic International Dental Hospital by the same operator. Duration of the surgery: 1 and a half years from approval
Sponsors
Study design
Eligibility
Inclusion criteria
vital tooth requiring indirect restorations grossly carious teeth needing onlay and inlay affected tooth not restorable with conventional fillings
Exclusion criteria
irreversible pulpitis dentin not exposed symptoms of irreversible pulpits and pulp necrosis patients on analgesics