Effects of different desensitizers and lasers on dentine tubules: An in-vitro analysis

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.contributor.authorOncu, Elif
dc.contributor.authorKarabekiroglu, Said
dc.contributor.authorUnlu, Nimet
dc.date.accessioned2024-02-23T12:15:43Z
dc.date.available2024-02-23T12:15:43Z
dc.date.issued2017
dc.departmentNEÜen_US
dc.description.abstractBackgroundDentin hypersensitivity is an important clinical problem affecting a large percentage of the population, and various therapies have been suggested for its treatmentamong them desensitizing agents and lasers. The aim of this study was to evaluate the in vitro effects of different in-office desensitizing agents and different type lasers, alone or in combination, on human dentinal tubules. Materials and MethodsEighty-four dentinal specimens obtained from freshly extracted impacted third molars were included and subsequently divided into seven groups: Group 1 (Control), Group 2 (Gluma desensitizer), Group 3 (Teethmate desensitizer), Group 4 (Nd:YAG laser), Group 5 (Er:YAG laser), Group 6 (Gluma desensitizer+Er:YAG laser), and Group 7 (Teethmate desensitizer+Er:YAG laser). The dentinal specimens of all groups were evaluated using SEM. A total of 12 images per sample were taken, and the numbers of open, partially occluded, and totally visible (open+partially occluded) dentinal tubules were counted. AFM was used to further substantiate the blocking mechanism. The data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA and Dunnett-C tests. ResultsComparison of the number of occluded dentinal tubules per 100 mu m(2) revealed that the laser and laser combined-treated groups showed the most occluded dentinal tubules. Gluma desensitizer+Er:YAG laser combination demonstrated significantly more tubule occlusion than all the other groups (p<.05). ConclusionsThe results of this study show that combined treatment methods were effective in the occlusion of dentinal tubules.en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/jemt.22859
dc.identifier.endpage744en_US
dc.identifier.issn1059-910X
dc.identifier.issn1097-0029
dc.identifier.issue7en_US
dc.identifier.pmid28251725en_US
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85014081700en_US
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ1en_US
dc.identifier.startpage737en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1002/jemt.22859
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12452/10581
dc.identifier.volume80en_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000404376500010en_US
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ3en_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Scienceen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopusen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMeden_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherWileyen_US
dc.relation.ispartofMicroscopy Research And Techniqueen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.subjectAfmen_US
dc.subjectDentin Hypersensitivityen_US
dc.subjectEr:Yag Laseren_US
dc.subjectGlumaen_US
dc.subjectNd:Yag Laseren_US
dc.subjectSemen_US
dc.subjectTeethmate Desensitizeren_US
dc.titleEffects of different desensitizers and lasers on dentine tubules: An in-vitro analysisen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
PubMed İndeksli Yayın Koleksiyonu
Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu