Comparison of the postoperative sensitivity of two restorative procedures in dental cavities (pilot test)
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This research work aims to determine which of the two restorative procedures presents more postoperative sensitivity and what type of treatment is most recommended when choosing a restorative material, using two types of restorative materials taking into account scientific advances and the viability of them. The design of this research is a pilot test. For the present study, a randomized group of 20 deep dental cavities was taken as a sample, of which 10 were treated with glass ionomer and 10 with 7th generation universal adhesive. Structured dental records were used to collect data. A written assessment was designed to record the postoperative discomfort that the patient may experience after voluntarily undergoing such treatments. In relation to the results, of the teeth treated with glass ionomer as a dental pulp protector, it was found that 60% presented sensitivity during the procedure. At 24 hours, 10% of the treated cavities showed sensitivity; After 7 days, 20% of the teeth showed sensitivity. Of the teeth treated with 7th generation adhesive as a dentine-pulp protector, it was found that 60% presented sensitivity during the procedure. At 24 hours, 10% of the treated cavities showed sensitivity; After 7 days, 10% of the teeth showed sensitivity. These findings indicate that both the glass ionomer and the 7th generation adhesive used as dentine-pulpal protectors present similar behaviors in terms of postoperative sensitivity. There are no considerable differences between the two.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
References
1. Mooney JB, Barrancos PJ. Operatoria Dental. Ed. Médica Panamericana; 2006.
2. Lanata E. Operatoria Dental, Estética y Adhesión. Buenos Aires: Editorial Grupo Guía C.A.; 2005.
3. Jhon Fredy BC, Rico LV, Jenny Fuentes Sánchez. Higiene Oral en Enfermedad Periodontal Consideraciones Históricas, Clínicas y Educativas. Univ Nac Colomb [Internet]. 2011;1(1):63–76. Available from: https://revistas.unal.edu.co/index.php/actaodontocol/article/view/28375.
4. Camps Alemany I. La evolución de la adhesión a dentina. Av Odontoestomatol. 2004;20(1):11–7.
5. Pérez Ruiz A 0, María Martínez J, Ii L, Carmona J, Ii B, Urgelles E, et al. Importancia de la semiología del dolor en el diagnóstico de un proceso inflamatorio pulpar Significance of pain’s Symptomatology in the diagnosis of pulpal inflammatory process. Rev Cuba Estomatol [Internet]. 2011;48(3):277–86. Available from: http://scielo.sld.cu
6. Mandri MN, Aguirre Gabre de Pietro A, Zamudio ME. Sistemas adhesivos en Odontología Restauradora Adhesives systems in Restorative Dentistry. Odontoestomatologia [Internet]. 2015;XVIL(26):50–7. Available from: http://www. scielo.org.co/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0121-246X2012000200011.
7. 3M. Mínima intervención: ionómeros de alta viscosidad sustitutos de la amalgama en el sector posterior [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2023 Jul 11]. Available from: https://gacetadental.com/2020/12/ un-adhesivo-que-se-adapta-a-las-ultimas-tendencias-de-la-odontologia-de-minima-interven- cion-25214/
8. Camps Alemany I. La evolución de la adhesión a dentina. Av Odontoestomatol. 2004;20(1):11–7.
9. Toda S, Ohnishi M, Kimura M, Toda T. Inhibitory effects of eugenol and related compounds on lipid peroxidation induced by reactive oxygen. Planta Med. 1994 Jun;60(3):282.
10. Drummond JL, Robledo J, Garcia L, Toepke TR. Thermal conductivity of cement base materials. Dent Mater. 1993 Jan;9(1):68–71.
11. Fleming GJP, Farooq AA, Barralet JE. Influence of powder/liquid mixing ratio on the performance of a restorative glass-ionomer dental cement. Biomaterials. 2003 Oct;24(23):4173–9.
12. Giacomazzi A. Comparación de las propiedades adhesivas, mecánicas y estéticas del ionómero de vidrio híbrido equia forte® vs resinas compuestas. Revisión sistemática [Internet]. 2022. Available from: http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12880/1638
13. Miletìc I, Baraba A, Basso M, Pulcini MG, Marković D, Perić T, et al. Clinical Performance of a Glass-Hibrid System Compared with a Resin Composite in the Posterior Region: Results of a 2-year Multicenter Study. J Adhes Dent. 2020;22(3):235–47.
14. Chávez Romero T, Mantilla Torres S. Comparacion de la fuerza de adhesion entre el ionómero de vidrio y la resina compuesta , con y sin grabado ácido. Odontoinvestigación [Internet]. 2016;1:18–33. Available from: http://www.usfq.edu.ec/publicaciones/odontoinvestigacion/Documents/odontoinvestigacion_ n003/oi_003_002.pdf.
15. Holland GR, Narhi MN, Addy M, Gangarosa L, Orchardson R. Guidelines for the design and conduct of clinical trials on dentine hypersensitivity. J Clin Periodontol. 1997 Nov;24(11):808-13.
16. Liu HC, Lan WH, Hsieh CC. Prevalence and distribution of cervical dentin hypersensitivity in a population in Taipei, Taiwan. J Endod. 1998 Jan;24(1):45-7.
17. Maya C, Vallejo M, Martinez NE. Citotoxicidad De Los Adhesivos Dentinarios. CES Odontol [Internet]. 2011;23(2):79-90. Available from: http://revistas.ces.edu.co/index.php/odontologia/article/ view/1217.
18. Ceballos Zamora K. Adhesivos universales en odontología. Universidad de Guayaquil; 2020.
19. Guillen Irrazabal, EL. Importancia del uso del ionómero de vidrio como protector pulpar indirecto en pacientes asistidos en la clínica de internado de la Facultad Piloto de Odontología durante en el año 2011. [Tesis de titulación]. 2012.