Effectiveness and acid/tooth brushing resistance of in-office desensitizing treatments—A hydraulic conductance study

João-Souza, Samira Helena; Machado, Alana Cristina; Lopes, Raquel Marianna; Zezell, Denise Maria; Scaramucci, Tais; Aranha, Ana Cecilia Corrêa (2018). Effectiveness and acid/tooth brushing resistance of in-office desensitizing treatments—A hydraulic conductance study. Archives of oral biology, 96, pp. 130-136. Elsevier Science 10.1016/j.archoralbio.2018.09.004

[img] Text
1-s2.0-S0003996918302115-main.pdf - Published Version
Restricted to registered users only
Available under License Publisher holds Copyright.

Download (1MB) | Request a copy

To evaluate dentin permeability and tubule occlusion of in-office desensitizing treatments, and to analyze their resistance to erosive/abrasive challenges.

Ninety-one 1mm-thick dentin discs were immersed in EDTA solution for 5 min. After analyzing the maximum dentin permeability, the specimens were randomly allocated into 7 experimental groups (n = 10): Control (no treatment); Er,Cr:YSGG laser; Nd:YAG laser; Gluma Desensitizer; Duraphat; Pro-Argin toothpaste; Calcium Sodium Phosphosilicate (CSP) paste. The post-treatment permeability was assessed and then the specimens were subjected to a 5-day erosion-abrasion cycling protocol: 4x/day of immersion in citric acid solution (5 min;0.3%), followed by exposure to clarified human saliva (60 min). After the first and last acid challenges, specimens were brushed for 15 s, with exposure to the toothpaste slurry for total time of 2 min. Dentin permeability was re-measured (post-cycling). Percentage of dentin permeability for each experimental time was calculated in relation to the maximum permeability (%Lp). Data were analyzed with 2-way repeated measures ANOVA and Tukey tests (α = 0.05). Surface modifications were analyzed by scanning electron microscopy.

In both experimental time CSP paste and Gluma Desensitizer did not differ from each other (p = 0.0874), and were the only groups that presented significantly lower %Lp than the Control (p = 0.026 and p = 0.022, respectively). After treatment, they were able to reduce dentin permeability in 82% and 72%, respectively. The %Lp post-cycling was higher than post-treatment value for all groups (p = 0.008). Dentin permeability increased 21% for CSP paste and 12% for Gluma, but they remained significant different from Control. Deposits on the surface were observed for CSP paste; and for Gluma, tubule diameters were shown to be smaller.

CSP paste and Gluma Desensitizer were the only treatments able to decrease dentin permeability post-treatment and to sustain low permeability post-cycling.

Item Type:

Journal Article (Original Article)


04 Faculty of Medicine > School of Dental Medicine > Department of Preventive, Restorative and Pediatric Dentistry
04 Faculty of Medicine > School of Dental Medicine

UniBE Contributor:

Niemeyer, Samira Helena


600 Technology > 610 Medicine & health
500 Science > 570 Life sciences; biology




Elsevier Science




Samira Helena Niemeyer

Date Deposited:

21 Feb 2019 11:00

Last Modified:

07 Jan 2022 08:12

Publisher DOI:


PubMed ID:






Actions (login required)

Edit item Edit item
Provide Feedback