Cargando…

A comparative evaluation of propolis and light-cured ormocer-based desensitizer in reducing dentin hypersensitivity

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the study was to evaluate and compare the clinical efficacy and the durability of propolis and Light-cured ormocer-based desensitizer (Admira Protect, Voco: Cuxhaven Germany) in the treatment of dentin hypersensitivity (DH). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was conducted o...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Maity, Snigdha, Priyadharshini, Vidya, Basavaraju, Suman
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7592609/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33144772
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jisp.jisp_500_19
_version_ 1783601221197627392
author Maity, Snigdha
Priyadharshini, Vidya
Basavaraju, Suman
author_facet Maity, Snigdha
Priyadharshini, Vidya
Basavaraju, Suman
author_sort Maity, Snigdha
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the study was to evaluate and compare the clinical efficacy and the durability of propolis and Light-cured ormocer-based desensitizer (Admira Protect, Voco: Cuxhaven Germany) in the treatment of dentin hypersensitivity (DH). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was conducted over a period of 2 months on 13 patients with 72 hypersensitive teeth, randomly allocated into three treatment groups: Group A: Treated with Propolis, Group B: Admira protect (Voco: Cuxhaven Germany), and Group C: Sterile water (Placebo control). Baseline sensitivity was recorded by the operator using tactile and evaporative stimuli. Visual analog scale (VAS) was used to record the degree of sensitivity perceived by the patients. All the groups received applications of allotted materials on day 1, 7, 14, and 21. After each applications VAS scoring was recorded. On day 30 and 60, only pain evaluation was done to determine the durability of each test materials. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: One-way ANOVA, repeated measure ANOVA and post hoc test was done for multiple comparison. RESULTS: All the groups showed significant results in reducing DH. Among Groups A and B, Group B showed immediate postoperative result at the end of the 1(st) week. CONCLUSION: Both the test materials were effective in reducing DH but Admira protect was found to be more efficient in reducing pain with longer duration of action (CTRI regd no: CTRI/2017/12/010755).
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7592609
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-75926092020-11-02 A comparative evaluation of propolis and light-cured ormocer-based desensitizer in reducing dentin hypersensitivity Maity, Snigdha Priyadharshini, Vidya Basavaraju, Suman J Indian Soc Periodontol Original Article OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the study was to evaluate and compare the clinical efficacy and the durability of propolis and Light-cured ormocer-based desensitizer (Admira Protect, Voco: Cuxhaven Germany) in the treatment of dentin hypersensitivity (DH). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was conducted over a period of 2 months on 13 patients with 72 hypersensitive teeth, randomly allocated into three treatment groups: Group A: Treated with Propolis, Group B: Admira protect (Voco: Cuxhaven Germany), and Group C: Sterile water (Placebo control). Baseline sensitivity was recorded by the operator using tactile and evaporative stimuli. Visual analog scale (VAS) was used to record the degree of sensitivity perceived by the patients. All the groups received applications of allotted materials on day 1, 7, 14, and 21. After each applications VAS scoring was recorded. On day 30 and 60, only pain evaluation was done to determine the durability of each test materials. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: One-way ANOVA, repeated measure ANOVA and post hoc test was done for multiple comparison. RESULTS: All the groups showed significant results in reducing DH. Among Groups A and B, Group B showed immediate postoperative result at the end of the 1(st) week. CONCLUSION: Both the test materials were effective in reducing DH but Admira protect was found to be more efficient in reducing pain with longer duration of action (CTRI regd no: CTRI/2017/12/010755). Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2020 2020-09-01 /pmc/articles/PMC7592609/ /pubmed/33144772 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jisp.jisp_500_19 Text en Copyright: © 2020 Indian Society of Periodontology http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0 This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
spellingShingle Original Article
Maity, Snigdha
Priyadharshini, Vidya
Basavaraju, Suman
A comparative evaluation of propolis and light-cured ormocer-based desensitizer in reducing dentin hypersensitivity
title A comparative evaluation of propolis and light-cured ormocer-based desensitizer in reducing dentin hypersensitivity
title_full A comparative evaluation of propolis and light-cured ormocer-based desensitizer in reducing dentin hypersensitivity
title_fullStr A comparative evaluation of propolis and light-cured ormocer-based desensitizer in reducing dentin hypersensitivity
title_full_unstemmed A comparative evaluation of propolis and light-cured ormocer-based desensitizer in reducing dentin hypersensitivity
title_short A comparative evaluation of propolis and light-cured ormocer-based desensitizer in reducing dentin hypersensitivity
title_sort comparative evaluation of propolis and light-cured ormocer-based desensitizer in reducing dentin hypersensitivity
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7592609/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33144772
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jisp.jisp_500_19
work_keys_str_mv AT maitysnigdha acomparativeevaluationofpropolisandlightcuredormocerbaseddesensitizerinreducingdentinhypersensitivity
AT priyadharshinividya acomparativeevaluationofpropolisandlightcuredormocerbaseddesensitizerinreducingdentinhypersensitivity
AT basavarajusuman acomparativeevaluationofpropolisandlightcuredormocerbaseddesensitizerinreducingdentinhypersensitivity
AT maitysnigdha comparativeevaluationofpropolisandlightcuredormocerbaseddesensitizerinreducingdentinhypersensitivity
AT priyadharshinividya comparativeevaluationofpropolisandlightcuredormocerbaseddesensitizerinreducingdentinhypersensitivity
AT basavarajusuman comparativeevaluationofpropolisandlightcuredormocerbaseddesensitizerinreducingdentinhypersensitivity