Postoperative hypersensitivity in class I resin-based composite restorations in general practice: interim results (original) (raw)
Related papers
Compendium of continuing education in dentistry (Jamesburg, N.J.: 1995)
Posterior permanent teeth with carious lesions radiographically extending no farther than halfway into dentin (n = 565) were restored using a resin-based composite by 38 dentists in a practice-based research network. Preoperative and 1-, 4-, and 13-week-posttreatment hypersensitivity was recorded using an 11-point visual analog scale filled out anonymously by subjects. Analyses were conducted to determine whether any correlation or association existed among several variables, including degree of carious activity, cavity extent, application of antimicrobial or desensitizing agents, application of liner, dentin bonding agent and resin-based composite employed, and composite placement method. Three results were fairly unexpected: only 36% of lesions were ranked as caries-active, 31% of teeth had appreciable preoperative hypersensitivity, and 16% of teeth with no preoperative hypersensitivity had appreciable hypersensitivity at 1 week posttreatment. Preoperative hypersensitivity was correlated with lesion visibility on radiographs but not with dentin caries activity (ranked on opening enamel), preparation depth, or preparation volume. Accrual to the study continues, and conclusions regarding other relationships awaits 13-week results.
Compendium of continuing education in dentistry (Jamesburg, N.J. : 1995), 2013
This study investigated postoperative hypersensitivity at 1, 4, and 13 weeks following resin-based composite (RBC) restorations of occlusal caries and its relationship with prepreparation (baseline) sensitivity and preparation-related variables, including dentin caries activity, cavity dimension and volume, and lesion radiographic visibility. Investigators in a practice-based research network enrolled patients with occlusal caries deemed to require operative treatment. The 45 dental practitioners then placed restorations using their preferred techniques. Complete baseline data on 665 restorations from 602 patients included patient-reported sensitivity (pre-preparation); dentists' ranking of dentin caries on opening the enamel; measurements of preparation depth, width, and length; and patient demographics. At 1, 4, and 13 weeks post-treatment, patients anonymously reported any sensitivity to hot and cold stimuli, sweets, clenching, and chewing, as well as quality-of-life indicato...
2020
Aim: to evaluate the efficacy of immediate dentin sealing using universal adhesive in comparison to delayed dentin sealing in the reduction of the hypersensitivity in teeth prepared for indirect tooth composite restorations using Visual Analog Scale (VAS). Materials and methods: Fifty-four patients between 18 and 30 years of age were recruited and randomized to the treatment protocols. After baseline preoperative data collection, diagnosis of caries was done depending on the basis of clinical examination that was done tentatively and radiographic examination was done as well. After cavity preparation was done, for the cavities to be managed with immediate dentine sealing, the single bond universal adhesive was applied over all the dentinal surfaces according to the manufacturer's instructions. For the cavities to be managed with delayed dentine sealing, no adhesive was applied on the dentinal surfaces and the impression was taken directly after cavity preparation using two-step technique. Hyper-Sensitivity was evaluated both intra-operatively (at baseline one day after the cavity preparation: by applying air from the triple way syringe directly over the prepared cavity and one week during temporization) and post operatively using (VAS). After try in and cementation of the indirect composite restoration post-cementation evaluation was done. (VAS) results were tabulated and statistically analyzed. Results: Delayed dentin sealing group (4.75) had a significantly higher median value of (VAS) than immediate dentin sealing group (0.32) (P<0.001). There was a significant difference between the scores at different follow-up intervals (P<0.001). The highest median value of (VAS) was found at baseline (3.37) followed by that found one week during temporization (2.91) while the lowest median value was found one week after cementation (0.16). Pairwise comparisons showed median value found one week after cementation (0.16) to be significantly lower than those found at baseline (3.37) and one week during temporization (2.91) (P<0.001). Conclusions: Inter-operative and post-cementation hypersensitivity problem after indirect resin composite restorations could be solved by using the immediate dentin sealing protocol using a self-etch adhesive.
SEBHA UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCES , 2022
A B S T R A C T Despite the improvements of resin composites restorative materials and techniques, postoperative hypersensitivity following placement of composite restoration yet remains a problem for both the dentist and the patient. Aim: To evaluate the effectiveness of a Novaseal cavity liner in preventing the occurrence of postoperative hypersensitivity (POH) in class I and II posterior composite restorations. Materials and Methods: A total of 296 posterior composite restorations were placed in 148 patients of both genders (mean age~27.7 ±8.02 Yrs). Each patient has homologous contralateral occlusal or proximal-occlusal caries lesions in premolars and molars teeth. All teeth were restored with a total-etch adhesive system; Tetric® N-Bond and Tetric® N-Ceram resin composite (Ivoclar Vivadent). For each patient, one tooth was chosen at random to be restored with a layer of Novaseal cavity liner, and the contralateral tooth was restored without a liner. POH to various stimuli was evaluated at weeks 1, 4, & 13 post-treatment using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS). Data were statistically analyzed by Chi-Square and Fischer Exact tests. Results: No statistically significant difference in the occurrence of POH was observed between the restorations performed with or without Novaseal cavity liner (P>0.05). Out of 296 restorations placed with the two restorative techniques; only five restorations; 5/296 (1.7%) reported POH to cold at week 1. Among those; three restorations; 3/148 (2%) placed with cavity liner, reported mild and moderate POH (VAS=2, 3 & 5), and two restorations; 2/148 (1.4%) placed without a liner reported mild POH (VAS=3). No POH was reported at weeks 4 and 13 for the two restorative techniques. Conclusions: Novaseal cavity liner could not totally prevent POH in class I and II posterior composite restorations. POH can occur irrespective of the use of a cavity liner.
Compendium of continuing education in dentistry (Jamesburg, N.J. : 1995), 2013
This study investigated postoperative hypersensitivity at 1, 4, and 13 weeks following resin-based composite restoration of occlusal caries as well as the relationship to materials and technique employed by PEARL Network Practitioner Investigators (P-Is). PEARL P-Is (n = 45) enrolled patients with early occlusal caries lesions deemed to require treatment and placed restorations using their routine technique. Data on 485 restorations at 4 weeks included: baseline sensitivity; ranking of dentin caries activity; post-preparation use of antimicrobials, liners, and dentin bonding agent; type of resin-based composite (RBC) employed; whether layer or bulk fill was used; and patient demographics. Patients anonymously reported at 1, 4, and 13 weeks any sensitivity to hot, cold, sweets, clenching, and chewing as well as quality of life (QOL) related to the restoration(s). Appreciable hypersensitivity (AH)--ie, sensitivity of 3 or greater on an 11-point anchored scale--was reported in 30% of a...
Post-operative sensitivity on direct resin composite restorations: clinical practice guidelines
Pain is one of the most frequent reasons for seeking dental treatment and clinical observations confirm that patients complain of dentinal sensitivity under different conditions and degrees of intensity. This is a very frequent problem after dental restorations with resin composite, even when there is no visible failure in the restoration. The aim of this bibliographic review was to identify the causes of post-operative sensitivity in resin composite restorations and how it can be avoided so that professionals can use this information to reduce the occurrence of this inconvenience in their daily practice. Complete texts of relevant articles on the subject were analysed. There are various causes of post-operative sensitivity in direct resin composite restorations related to failures in diagnosis and indications for treatment and/or cavity preparation, the stages of hybridization of hard dental tissues, insertion of the material, and finishing and polishing the restoration. To avoid o...
Prevention of postoperative tooth sensitivity: a preliminary clinical trial
Journal of Oral Rehabilitation, 2005
The purpose of this study was to evaluate clinically the effects of pre-treatments with a 35% hydroxyethyl metacrylate/5% glutaraldehyde dentine desensitizer (Gluma Desensitizer) and a 2% chlorexidine-based cavity disinfectant (Cav-Clean) on postoperative sensitivity. Three premolar teeth with no pain symptoms were selected from each one of 17 patients, totalling 51 teeth, for which Class II restoration using a composite was indicated. Each one of the three premolar teeth of the same patient was submitted to a different treatment. After acid etching, only a dental adhesive was applied to the first tooth, which served as the control. Gluma Desensitizer dentinal desensitizer was applied to the second premolar tooth prior to applying the dental adhesive. Cav-Clean cavity disinfectant was used on the third premolar tooth before applying the dental adhesive. Only one tooth was restored per session, and all premolar teeth were restored with a condensable composite, according to current restoration technique guidelines. Sensitivity to different stimuli (cold, heat, sweet and dental floss) was assessed on Day 1, Day 4 and Day 7 by questionnaire following restorative procedures. The results of this clinical research showed that, as far as the investigated stimuli and postoperative course are concerned, there was no statistically significant difference in the three different treatments (P > 0AE05). Postoperative sensitivity resulting from Class II restorations using composite resin cannot be completely eliminated with the prior use of a dentinal desensitizer or a cavity disinfectant. In day-to-day clinical treatment, postoperative sensitivity may possibly be related to the technique employed.
The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice
Aim and objective: This study was undertaken to compare postoperative sensitivity in posterior class I restorations using etch-and-rinse and self-etch composite resins, GC Fuji IX, and Cention-N. Materials and methods: The sample size consisted of 160 participants. After clinical and radiographic examination, the participants were randomly assigned to four groups consisting of 40 participants each according to the restorative materials used. Class I cavity was prepared and was restored on each patient and after restoration postoperative sensitivity was evaluated at 24 h, 48 h, and 7 days using the visual analog scale (VAS). The results were tabulated and statistically analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and post-hoc multiple comparison tests. Results: There were significant differences present between the groups at 24 h, 48 h, and 7 days. We found that the materials causing least postoperative sensitivity are ranked according to superiority as GC Fuji IX > nano-hybrid composite using self-etch adhesive > Cention-N > nanohybrid composite using etch-and-rinse adhesive. Conclusion: Both GC Fuji IX and self-etch adhesive showed less postoperative sensitivity as compared to etch-and-rinse and Cention-N at 24 h. With GC Fuji IX and self-etch adhesive postoperative sensitivity was decreased while Cention-N also showed good results at 48 h and 7 days. Etch-and-rinse adhesive showed maximum postoperative sensitivity as compared to other groups at 24 h, 48 h, and 7 days. Clinical significance: Teeth restored with resin composites are susceptible to sensitivity. The restorative material used and their handling can influence postoperative sensitivity.
Objective: To evaluate post-operative sensitivity and secondary caries associated with posterior composite restoration. Materials and Methods: The study involved restoration of occlusal and proximo-occlusal caries on premolars and molars of 62 patients seen at the out-patient clinic of the restorative department of the Lagos University Teaching Hospital. The restorations were completed with a micro-hybrid light curing resin composite (Unolux BCS, UnoDent, England). Following total etch procedure and use of a type 2 (5th generation/one-bottle) adhesive. The USPHSC or modified Ryge criteria was employed for direct evaluation of the restorations over the 12 month period. Results: Post-operative sensitivity was 3.5% Bravo at baseline and 1.7% Bravo at 12 months. No significant change in result was recorded for post-operative sensitivity at the end of the evaluation period. 100% was recorded for the absence of secondary caries throughout the evaluation period up till the 6 th month when a failed restoration scored 1.7% Bravo. At 12 months Alpha scores for secondary caries was 98.3%. Conclusion: Post-operative sensitivity was kept to a minimum and there were no occurrences of secondary caries. Keywords: Composite Restoration, Sensitivity Posterior Teeth
Post-operative sensitivity in direct resin composite restorations: Clinical practice guidelines
Pain is one of the most frequent reasons for seeking dental treatment and clinical observations confirm that patients complain of dentinal sensitivity under different conditions and degrees of intensity. This is a very frequent problem after dental restorations with resin composite, even when there is no visible failure in the restoration. The aim of this bibliographic review was to identify the causes of post-operative sensitivity in resin composite restorations and how it can be avoided so that professionals can use this information to reduce the occurrence of this inconvenience in their daily practice. Complete texts of relevant articles on the subject were analysed. There are various causes of post-operative sensitivity in direct resin composite restorations related to failures in diagnosis and indications for treatment and/or cavity preparation, the stages of hybridization of hard dental tissues, insertion of the material, and finishing and polishing the restoration. To avoid or minimize the occurrence of post-operative sensitivity, it is imperative to make a good diagnosis and use the correct technique at all stages of the restorative procedure.