Occluding Efficiency of Different Desensitizing Agents and Er,Cr:YSGG Laser on Dentin Tubules
This study aimed to evaluate the effects of two desensitizers and the Er,Cr:YSGG laser on human dentin tubules, applied alone or in combination. Ninety-six dentin specimens were obtained from extracted third molars and divided into six groups: Group 1: no-treatment (Control); Group 2: nano-hydroxyapatite desensitizer (NhapD); Group 3: NhapD+Er,Cr:YSGG laser (L); Group 4: Er,Cr:YSGG laser (L); Group 5: glutaraldehyde desensitizer (GD); and Group 6: GD+L, respectively. All specimens were evaluated using scanning electron microscopy. The diameter and the number of open dentin tubules, the tubules’ occluding ratio, and the mineral coverage area were measured via the Image J software at 2000× magnification. Atomic force microscopy was used to determine the blocking mechanism of desensitizing treatments and the surface morphology of dentin specimens. One-way ANOVA and Tukey tests were used for statistical analysis. The number of open tubules and the mean diameter of tubules for all treatment groups showed statistically significant differences from the control group The NhapD+L group had a significantly lower number of open tubules than the L and GD groups. The NhapD+L and L groups significantly had higher occluding ratios than the other groups. The present study showed that the Er,Cr:YSGG laser alone was effective in terms of tubule occlusion and also contributed to increasing the occluding ratio of nano-hydroxyapatite. It may be recommended to use the Er,Cr:YSGG laser with nano-hydroxyapatite desensitizers to achieve effective tubule occlusion.SUMMARY
Purpose
Methods
Results
Conclusions
A series of images showing open and occluded dentin tubules and mineral coverage area that was determined using the Image J program. After entering the Image J program, the images were subjected to different color filters by selecting the “Image” tab; open tubules and crystals deposited on the surface were observed. Figure 1 presents the same SEM image with different color filters applied.
Representative SEM images of mineral coverage area for each experimental group. SEM micrographs of dentin surface in (A) NhapD applied group, (B) NhapD+Laser applied group, (C) GD applied group, and (D) GD+Laser applied group. (magnification is 2000×). (E) The detailed statistical analysis of mineral coverage area (p<0.05). NhapD, nano-hydroxyapatite desensitizer; L, Er,Cr:YSGG Laser; GD, glutaraldehyde desensitizer; SEM, scanning electron microscopy.
Comparisons of the longitudinal (cross-sectional) SEM micrographs of the experimental groups at 3000× and 5000× magnifications. (The top and bottom images belong to the same experimental group.) The infiltration depth of the plugs in dentin tubules was shown with yellow boxes. Melting formation in the dentin tubule was shown with gray boxes. (A) Control, (B) NhapD, (C) NhapD+L, (D) L, (E) GD, (F) GD+L. (Control, no-treatment; NhapD, nano-hydroxyapatite desensitizer; L, Er,Cr:YSGG Laser; GD, glutaraldehyde desensitizer; SEM, scanning electron microscopy).
Representative SEM images of the examination of tubule occluding. (Control, NhapD, NhapD+L, Laser, GD, GD+L) and (G) Mean and standard deviation graph of occluding ratio. A detailed statistical analysis of occluding ratio was shown (p<0.05). (Control, no-treatment; NhapD, nano-hydroxyapatite desensitizer; L, Er,Cr:YSGG Laser; GD, glutaraldehyde desensitizer; SEM, scanning electron microscopy).
Representative AFM images of dentin specimens showing morphological changes in relation to treatment. (A) Control, (B) NhapD, (C) NhapD+L, (D) L, (E) GD, (F) GD+L. (Control, no-treatment; NhapD, nano-hydroxyapatite desensitizer; L, Er,Cr:YSGG Laser; GD, glutaraldehyde desensitizer; AFM, atomic force microscopy).
Contributor Notes