Home | About us | Editorial board | Search | Ahead of print | Current issue | Archives | Submit article | Instructions| Reviewers

Login 
  Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size Users Online: 545    
     


 
Table of Contents   
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2021  |  Volume : 11  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 332-339
Efficacy of desensitizers in reducing post-preparation sensitivity prior to a fixed dental prosthesis: A randomized controlled clinical trial


1 Department of Prosthetic Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Jazan University, Jazan, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
2 Dental Intern, College of Dentistry, Jazan University, Jazan, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
3 Department of Restorative Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Jazan University, Jazan, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Date of Submission30-Jan-2021
Date of Decision04-Apr-2021
Date of Acceptance12-Apr-2021
Date of Web Publication10-Jun-2021

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Harisha Dewan
Department of Prosthetic Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Jazan University, Jazan.
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/jispcd.JISPCD_31_21

Rights and Permissions

   Abstract 

Aims: The aim of this article is to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of Gluma, Shield Force Plus, and Telio CS desensitizers, in reducing pre- and post-cementation sensitivity for complete coverage restorations. Materials and Methods: The study was a double-blind, randomized, controlled clinical trial in which 56 patients requiring posterior three-unit fixed partial dentures were randomly assigned to four groups, each group with 14 patients (n = 14): Group C (Control group), Group GL (Gluma group), Group SF (Shield Force Plus group), and Group TC (Telio CS group). In the desensitizer groups, desensitizer application was performed following the manufacturer’s directions immediately after tooth preparation (first visit), before metal restoration try-in (second visit, 2 weeks after the first visit), and before final cementation (third visit, 2 weeks after the second visit). Sensitivity levels were scored and evaluated using a visual analog scale (VAS), using cold test and electric pulp test (EPT) during the three visits before the cementation, and then over the phone 2 weeks after the final cementation. The data were statistically analyzed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by post-hoc Bonferroni and unpaired t-tests. Results: One-way ANOVA revealed significant differences between the four groups. The post-hoc Bonferroni tests showed a significant decrease in the mean cold test scores from the first to third visit, with a p-value <0.001 for the GL, SF, and TS groups. The mean EPT scores also decreased significantly from the first to third visit (p< 0.001) for the GL and SF groups, whereas p = 0.023 for the TS group. Most of the subjects did not complain of any sensitivity post-cementation, except for one patient in Group TS. Conclusion: All three desensitizers were found to be effective in reducing pre- and post-cementation dentin sensitivity, as indicated by the consistent reduction in VAS scores throughout the visits.


Keywords: Cementation, dentin desensitizing agents, dentin sensitivity, tooth preparation


How to cite this article:
Sayed ME, Dewan H, Alomer N, Alsubaie S, Chohan H. Efficacy of desensitizers in reducing post-preparation sensitivity prior to a fixed dental prosthesis: A randomized controlled clinical trial. J Int Soc Prevent Communit Dent 2021;11:332-9

How to cite this URL:
Sayed ME, Dewan H, Alomer N, Alsubaie S, Chohan H. Efficacy of desensitizers in reducing post-preparation sensitivity prior to a fixed dental prosthesis: A randomized controlled clinical trial. J Int Soc Prevent Communit Dent [serial online] 2021 [cited 2021 Jun 15];11:332-9. Available from: https://www.jispcd.org/text.asp?2021/11/3/332/318005



   Introduction Top


Tooth preparation for full-coverage crowns exposes dentin (approximately 1–2 million dentinal tubules),[1] especially when allowing additional room for the porcelain crown. As the dentinal tubules become open to the oral environment, the chances increase for microbes to enter the pulp chamber, especially if the provisional restorations are ill-fitting.[2] The discomfort caused by pain and sensitivity may prevent a patient from performing necessary self-care through oral hygiene procedures.

Oliveira and co-workers[3] concluded in 2020 that treating dentin sensitivity results in the psychological acceptance of additional dental procedures by alleviating pain and increasing the patient’s comfort level, consequently improving the quality of life. Although there is substantial literature regarding the use of desensitizers to decrease dentin sensitivity, the acceptability of the currently available commercial desensitizers is still questionable due to a lack of documentation.[4] This justifies the need to perform additional clinical research.

The primary objective of the present study was to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of three office-use desensitizing agents, Gluma (Heraeus Kulzer, Hanau, Germany), Shield Force Plus (Tokuyama Dental America Inc., San Diego, CA, USA), and Telio CS (Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein), in reducing the pre- and post-cementation sensitivity for complete coverage restorations. The differences in the responses regarding pain perception were also assessed, based on tooth type (maxillary or mandibular), age, and gender. The null hypothesis tested was that the application of desensitizing agents on the prepared tooth surface for fixed dental prostheses gives same effect in reducing pre- and post-cementation sensitivity.


   Materials and Methods Top


The present study was designed as a single-center, parallel, double-blind, randomized, controlled clinical trial. Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the Standing Committee for Research Ethics (Ref letter no. REC42/1–007) before beginning the study. The clinical trials were registered on August 13, 2020.

A total of 56 patients (aged 20–55 years) who required three-unit fixed partial dentures on the posterior maxillary or mandibular teeth and who were seen from November 2019 to January 2020 were selected for the study. All the participants were given a brief explanation about the investigation and were required to sign an informed consent form. The inclusion criteria were as follows: a minimum of one posterior tooth missing and the patient was in need of fixed dental prosthesis (porcelain-fused-to-metal), abutment teeth with a vital pulp, normal apical periodontal ligament space, no history of hypersensitivity, and no previous restorations involving more than 50% of the coronal tooth surface. The exclusion criteria were as follows: patients with chronic disease, gross oral pathology, or current use of any kind of medication; patients with teeth with previous extensive restoration, mobility, or periodontal diseases; pregnant or lactating women; and individuals participating in any other clinical study.

Sample size selection

A pilot study was conducted with 12 participants, and the pooled variance was calculated based on the results obtained. A difference of 1 in the visual analog scale (VAS) score between the baseline and subsequent visits was considered a clinically significant reduction in sensitivity. The following formula was used to calculate the sample size:



where N is the sample size, S2 is the pooled variance, Zα is the desired level of confidence, Zβ is the desired power, and d is the clinically expected difference. The following was the outcome:



Randomization

The desensitizers were assigned to the patients using simple random sampling via a lottery. The numbers were randomly selected, with each number corresponding to either a desensitizer or the control group. The four groups, comprised of 14 patients each, were as follows:

Group C: no desensitizer was applied during the visits (control group) (n = 14);

Group GL: Gluma desensitizer was applied during the visits (n = 14);

Group SF: Shield Force Plus desensitizer was applied during the visits (n = 14);

Group TC: Telio CS desensitizer was applied during the visits (n = 14).

The compositions of and mechanisms of action for the three commercially available desensitizing agents used in this study can be seen in [Table 1].
Table 1: The three types of desensitizers used, along with their compositions and mechanisms of action

Click here to view


Blinding

The application of the desensitizers (or control) and stimuli, along with the collection of the subjects’ responses during the visits, was performed by two well-trained examiners. After providing informed consent, the first examiner allocated a number to each patient. The patients were blinded to whether they were in the control group or one of the desensitizer groups. The application of the desensitizer (or control) was carried out by the same examiner. Therefore, the random group allotment and the application of the agents were carried out by the first examiner. This information was concealed from the second examiner, who assessed and recorded the sensitivity scores, making the study double-blinded.

Clinical procedures

During the first visit, standard prosthodontic principles were followed to prepare the teeth for complete coverage restorations, using a high-speed hand piece and copious water-coolant spray. After the effects of the local anesthesia had worn off, baseline sensitivity (first reading) was recorded on the VAS using the cold and electric pulp tests (EPTs) [Figure 1]. Final impressions using addition silicone (Virtual, Ivoclar Vivadent, Amherst, NY, USA) were made, and the provisional prosthesis was fabricated (Protemp TM II, 3M ESPE, Seefeld, Germany) via a direct method, using polyvinyl siloxane putty (Express TM STD, 3M ESPE, Seefeld, Germany) matrix. The first application of desensitizer was then performed, according to the manufacturer’s recommendation. The fabricated provisional prosthesis was cemented with non-eugenol provisional cement (Rely XTM Temp NE, 3M ESPE, Seefeld, Germany), and the patient was recalled for the metal restoration try-in 1 week later. During the second visit, the provisional prosthesis was removed, the patient’s responses to the cold test and EPT were again recorded on the VAS (second reading), and the metal restoration try-in was performed. The second application of a desensitizing agent was then performed, the provisional prosthesis was re-cemented, and the patient returned for final cementation 1 week later. During the third visit, the provisional prosthesis was removed, the patient’s responses to the cold test and EPT were again recorded (third reading), and the third application of the desensitizing agent was performed, before cementing the final prosthesis with resin cement (G-cem, GC Corporation, Tokyo, Japan). The control group had similar clinical steps, except for the application of desensitizers.
Figure 1: Clinical procedures for desensitizer groups. A: Tooth preparation for metal-fused-to-ceramic fixed dental prosthesis; B: cold test using a large cotton pellet (#2) sprayed with refrigerant spray; C: electric stimulus applied for electric pulp testing (EPT); D: desensitizer application according to manufacturer’s recommendations

Click here to view


Evaluation of sensitivity level

Subjective evaluation of pain produced by the cold and electrical stimuli was performed to check pre-cementation sensitivity. Before starting the procedure, patients were educated about the cold test, EPT, and VAS scores, which helped reduce any anxiety they had.

Cold test and EPT

Isolation of the affected tooth was performed carefully using cotton rolls to prevent false-positive responses. The adjacent or contralateral tooth acted as the control. The cold test was performed using refrigerant spray (Coltene Endo Ice), which contains 1, 1, 1,2-tetrafluoroethane, and has a temperature of −26.2°C.[5] The teeth were air-dried, and a large cotton pellet (#2) sprayed with the refrigerant was applied to the mid-facial area of the tooth. The patient reported their pain response based on the VAS. For the EPT, an electrolyte (toothpaste) was applied on the facial surface, ensuring that it did not contact adjacent gingival tissue or restorations. The circuit was completed from the electrode through the tooth, to the body of the patient and then back to the electrode. This was done by attaching a lip clip to the patient’s lip. Once the circuit was complete, the electric stimulus was applied and was increased gradually. The patient was educated to point out when the sensation occurred, and the intensity of the response was recorded according to the VAS.

Recording the response

The VAS, in the form of a questionnaire, was given to the patients, who were asked to mark on the scale where it best described their pain level. The VAS consisted of a 100 mm line, where 0 was equivalent to “no pain” (non-sensitive) and 10 was equivalent to “severe pain” (extremely hypersensitive). Post-cementation, the patient’s response to sensitivity was evaluated over the phone 2 weeks after the cementation. The forms were thoroughly examined, and a summary spreadsheet of the results was used for statistical analysis.

Statistical analysis

The mean and standard deviation of the cold test and EPT scores during the first (after preparation), second (before metal restoration try-in), and third visits (before final cementation) of the C, GL, SF, and TS groups are shown in [Table 2]. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used for multiple group comparisons followed by a post-hoc Bonferroni test for pairwise comparisons. A p-value of 0.05 or less was considered statistically significant. The mean cold test and EPT scores during the three visits were compared between the groups using the one-way ANOVA test. Interval comparison of mean cold test and EPT scores was performed using the post-hoc Bonferroni test. The inter-group comparison of the difference in mean cold test and EPT scores during the three visits was also performed using the post-hoc Bonferroni test. Unpaired t-tests were used to determine differences in responses in males and females, maxillary and mandibular arches, and subjects below 40 years of age and those above 40 years of age. The statistical analysis was done using SPSS software.
Table 2: The mean and standard deviations of the cold test and EPT scores during the first, second, and third visits of the C, GL, SF, and TS groups

Click here to view



   Results Top


One-way ANOVA showed a significant difference in mean cold test scores during the first (p < 0.001) and third visits (p = 0.002) and in the mean EPT scores during the first (p < 0.001), second (p < 0.001), and third visits (p < 0.001) between the four groups [Table 3] and [Figure 2].
Table 3: Differences in mean cold test and EPT scores during the first, second, and third visits of the C, GL, SF, and TS groups, using one-way ANOVA tests

Click here to view
Figure 2: Graph showing one-way ANOVA test showing the mean cold test and EPT scores during the first, second, and the third visits for the C, GL, SF, and TS groups

Click here to view


The post-hoc Bonferroni test was done which stated significant decrease in mean cold test scores from the first to the third visit (p < 0.001) in the GL, SF, and TS groups. The mean EPT scores also decreased significantly from the first visit to the third visit (p< 0.001) in the GL and SF groups and 0.023 for the TS group. For the control group, it was 0.990, which was insignificant [Table 4] and [Figure 3].
Table 4: Interval comparison of mean cold test and EPT scores, using the post-hoc Bonferroni test

Click here to view
Figure 3: Graph showing the interval comparison of mean cold test and EPT scores using the post-hoc Bonferroni test

Click here to view


The post-hoc Bonferroni test also showed that the difference in mean cold test scores between the first and second visits was significantly more among the GL and SF groups than in the C group, with p-values of 0.005 and 0.027, respectively [Table 5]. The difference in mean cold test scores between the first and third visits was significantly more among the GL group than in the SF group (p < 0.001), which was significantly higher than that of the TS group (p = 0.018), which was significantly higher than that of the C group (p = 0.041). The difference in the mean EPT scores between the first and second visits was significantly higher among the GL group than in the C and TS groups (p = 0.012). The difference in the mean EPT scores between the first and the third visits was significantly more among the GL group when compared with the SF group (p < 0.001), which was significantly higher than that of the TS group (p < 0.001), which was significantly higher than that of the C group (p = 0.046).
Table 5: The inter-group comparison of the difference in mean cold test and EPT scores during the three visits using the post-hoc Bonferroni test

Click here to view


According to the unpaired t-test, in the TS group, the difference in mean cold test scores between the first and second visits and between the first and third visits was significantly more among males than among females with a p-value of 0.045 and 0.018, respectively [Table 6]i]. In the TS group again, the difference in mean cold test scores between the first and second visits and between the first and third visits was significantly more among the mandibular arch with a p-value of 0.045 and 0.001, respectively [[Table 6]ii]. In the SF group, the difference in mean cold test scores between first and second visits was significantly more among age less than 40, compared with those more than 40 years of age with a p-value of 0.047 [[Table 6]iii]. Most of the subjects did not complain of any sensitivity 2 weeks post-cementation (except for one case for the TS group) when questioned on a telephonic interview.
Table 6: Significant differences in responses in: (i) males and females in the TS group, (ii) maxillary and mandibular arches in the TS group, and (iii) subjects below and above 40 years of age in the SF group, using unpaired t-tests

Click here to view



   Discussion Top


All three desensitizers had different pre-cementation sensitivity level scores, Gluma being the most effective, followed by Shield Force Plus, and then Telio CS. The difference in chemical compositions and mechanism of action, resistance to dissolution, and the difference in solubility level of precipitate or resin in the dentinal tubules may lead to such differences [Table 1].[6],[7]

The present study is supported by previous studies indicating the effectiveness of Gluma desensitizer in cases of dentin hypersensitivity[8],[9] and in reducing the post-preparation sensitivity in full crowns.[10] According to a study by Chandra et al.,[11] both Gluma and Shield Force Plus materials are effective in occluding dentinal tubules but Shield Force Plus appeared to be more promising. According to Eyüboğlu and Naiboğlu,[12] Gluma and Shield Force both show similar reducing effects of dentin hypersensitivity at the 2- and 4-week follow-up time points. Although several investigators have reported immediate pain relief[13],[14] to dentin hypersensitivity following application, repeated applications are subsequently required to maintain reduction[13] in dentin hypersensitivity. This was evident in the present study, and the mean test scores decreased significantly from the first to the third visit in all the groups of desensitizers.

Telio CS was found to be more effective in males than in females, as the difference in the mean cold test scores between the visits was significantly more among males than among females. The probable reason could be that women have lower tolerance and pain threshold when compared with men, which is an effect of hormonal variation and reproductive status.[15],[16],[17] Resting blood pressure and pain sensitivity have a continuous inverse relationship according to studies,[18],[19] and women’s resting blood pressure is generally lower than that in men. The teeth most often affected by dentin hypersensitivity are the first premolars of both jaws followed by the second premolars, canines, and first molars of both jaws.[20] Not many studies have reported the effect of desensitizers separately on maxillary and mandibular arches but according to a study done using oxalate strips, responses were generally similar on each side and both arches of the mouth (maxillary right and mandibular left).[21] However, in the present study, the difference in the mean cold test scores between the visits was significantly more among the mandibular arches when compared with the maxillary in the Telio CS group, stating that Telio CS was more effective in the mandible than in the maxilla. The probable reason could be the long duration of the anesthetic effect on the mandible. Failure to understand the scales and the fact that pain is subjective to each individual and each patient responds differently may have some impact on the results of the studies.[22]

Dentin hypersensitivity is usually observed in the age range of 20–49 years, and the mean number of sensitive teeth per patient in the 30–39 year age group reduces slowly in the older and younger subjects.[23],[24],[25] In the present study, Shield Force Plus was more effective in subjects less than 40 years of age as the difference in the mean cold test scores between the first and second visits was significantly more among patients aged less than 40 years than among those aged more than 40 years. This result could be due to the better double-block effect of Shield Force Plus [Table 1] in the cases of patients <40 years of age or due to the apprehensive nature of the subjects over 40 years in the Shield Force Plus group.

In the present study, all the groups treated with desensitizers showed significantly reduced pain levels, both for the cold test and EPT except the control group, thus rejecting the null hypothesis.


   Conclusion Top


Within the limitation of the in-vivo study, it can be concluded that:

  1. Application of all three desensitizers successfully abated dentin hypersensitivity after tooth preparation. However, Gluma was more effective than Shield Force Plus, which in turn was more effective than Telio CS.


  2. Repeated applications of desensitizers during the visits were more beneficial than a single application.


Future scope/clinical significance

Regarding the biocompatibility of the desensitizer agent components, cytopathic effects have been observed with glutaraldehyde and HEMA.[25],[26] Future studies focussing on the cytotoxic potential of the desensitizers must be conducted. A larger sample size with stratified sampling in the future might be useful in accurately researching the age and gender effects. Although the present study has proven immediate pain reduction between visits, long-term clinical trials, not restricted to single-center, should be carried out to confirm the results.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Mr Sukhwinder Singh Oberoi for helping with the statistical analysis of the study.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

Authors contribution

Not applicable.

Ethical policy and institutional review board statement

Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the Standing Committee for Research Ethics—Jazan University (Ref letter no. REC42/1-007) on November 18, 2019, before beginning the study. The study protocol was approved by the Vice Dean of Research, College of Dentistry, Jazan University. The clinical trials were registered on August 13, 2020, with a ClinicalTrials.gov identifier of NCT04512625. All the procedures have been performed as per the ethical guidelines laid down by Declaration of Helsinki (1975).

Patient declaration of consent

The authors certify that they have obtained all appropriate patient consent forms. In the form, the patient(s) has/have given his/her/their consent for his/her/their images and other clinical information to be reported in the journal. The patients understand that their names and initials will not be published and due efforts will be made to conceal their identity, but anonymity cannot be guaranteed.

Data availability statement

The data set used in the current study is available in google scholar.

 
   References Top

1.
Richardson D, Tao L, Pashley DH. Dentin permeability: Effects of crown preparation. Int J Prosthodont 1991;4:219-25.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Yavorek A. The influence of full coverage restorations on pulp vitality: A ten-year retrospective study. Master’s Theses 2019;2009:522.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Freitas BLS, Pinto MdS, Oliveira ESd, OliveiraDd, Willya D, Lanza E, et al. Scales for pain assessment in cervical dentin hypersensitivity: A comparative study. Cad Saúde Colet 2020;28:271-7.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Pandurić V, Knezević A, Tarle Z, Sutalo J. The efficiency of dentine adhesives in treating non-caries cervical lesions. J Oral Rehabil 2001;28:1168-74.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Berman LH, Ilan R. Diagnosis. In: Hargreaves KM, Berman LH, editors. Cohen’s Pathways of the Pulp. 11th ed. USA: Elsevier; 2016. p. 2-32.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Schüpbach P, Lutz F, Finger WJ. Closing of dentinal tubules by Gluma desensitizer. Eur J Oral Sci 1997;105:414-21.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Kawamoto C, Fukuoka A, Sano H. Adhesion of newly developed adhesive system ‘Tokuyama bond force.’ Quintessence 2007;26:0614.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Schmidlin PR, Sahrmann P. Current management of dentin hypersensitivity. Clin Oral Investig 2013;17(Suppl 1):S55-9.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Vora J, Mehta D, Meena N, Sushma G, Finger WJ, Kanehira M. Effects of two topical desensitizing agents and placebo on dentin hypersensitivity. Am J Dent 2012;25:293-8.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Christensen GJ. Glass ionomer as a luting material. J Am Dent Assoc 1990;120:59-62.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Chandra NR, Ghosh KK, Valavalkar NN, Prakash S. Evaluation of efficacy of Shield Force Plus and Gluma desensitizer on dentinal tubule occlusion: A scanning electron microscopic study. Int J Dent Health Sci 2016;3:95-104.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Eyüboğlu GB, Naiboğlu P. Clinical efficacy of different dentin desensitizers. Oper Dent2020;45:E317-33.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Lopes AO, Eduardo CdeP, Aranha AC. Clinical evaluation of low-power laser and a desensitizing agent on dentin hypersensitivity. Lasers Med Sci 2015;30:823-9.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Aranha AC, Pimenta LA, Marchi GM. Clinical evaluation of desensitizing treatments for cervical dentin hypersensitivity. Braz Oral Res 2009;23:333-9.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Fillingim RB. Sex, gender, and pain: Women and men really are different. Curr Rev Pain 2000;4:24-30.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Rosseland LA, Stubhaug A. Gender is a confounding factor in pain trials: Women report more pain than men after arthroscopic surgery. Pain 2004;112:248-53.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
West NX. The dentine hypersensitivity patient—A total management package. Int Dent J 2007;57:411-9.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Bruehl S, Carlson CR, McCubbin JA. The relationship between pain sensitivity and blood pressure in normotensives. Pain 1992;48:463-7.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
France CR. Decreased pain perception and risk for hypertension: Considering a common physiological mechanism. Psychophysiology 1999;36:683-92.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Chrysanthakopoulos NA. Prevalence of dentine hypersensitivity in Greece. J Clin Exp Dent 2011;3:445-51.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Anderson CJ, Gerlach RW, Kugel G. Use of oxalate strips in dentistry: Overall response and case studies with recent and longstanding sensitivity. Compendium 2016;37.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Aparna S, Setty S, Thakur S. Comparative efficacy of two treatment modalities for dentinal hypersensitivity: A clinical trial. Indian J Dent Res 2010;21:544-8.  Back to cited text no. 22
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
23.
Addy M. Dentine hypersensitivity: New perspectives on an old problem. Int Dent J 2002;52:367-75.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Pashley DH, Tay FR, Haywood VB, Collins MA, Drisko CL. Dentin hypersensitivity: Consensus-based recommendations for the diagnosis and management of dentin hypersensitivity. Inside Dent 2008;4:1-35.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Costa CA, Vaerten MA, Edwards CA, Hanks CT. Cytotoxic effects of current dental adhesive systems on immortalized odontoblast cell line MDPC-23. Dent Mater 1999;15:434-41.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Hanks CT, Strawn SE, Wataha JC, Craig RG. Cytotoxic effects of resin components on cultured mammalian fibroblasts. J Dent Res 1991;70:1450-5.  Back to cited text no. 26
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4], [Table 5], [Table 6]



 

Top
Print this article  Email this article
 
  Search
 
  
    Similar in PUBMED
 Related articles
    Article in PDF (851 KB)
    Citation Manager
    Access Statistics
    Reader Comments
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  


    Abstract
   Introduction
    Materials and Me...
   Results
   Discussion
   Conclusion
    References
    Article Figures
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed36    
    Printed0    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded13    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal