Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 28, 2025
Quasistatic Mechanical Testing for Computer-Aided Design and Manufacturing Occlusal Veneers Cemented to Milled Dentin Analog Material
Published on: December 20, 2024
Efficacy of Desensitizers in Reducing Post-preparation Sensitivity Prior to a Fixed Dental Prosthesis: A Randomized
Mohammed E Sayed1, Harisha Dewan1, Neda Alomer2
1Department of Prosthetic Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Jazan University, Jazan, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
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.
