An One-Year Randomised Controlled Clinical Trial to Assess the Effects of Two Desensitising Agents on Reducing Post-operative Sensitivity After Composite Restorations

Abstract

Abstract Background: Roughly 30% of individuals encounter post-operative sensitivity Subsequent to the placement of resin composite restorations in their posterior teeth, as indicated by various clinical research studies. To alleviate post-operative sensitivity, one approach involves the desensitization of teeth through the occlusion of dentinal tubules using dental desensitizers, aimed at reducing sensitivity following composite restorations. Methods: A total of 10 patients, all having Class I cavities, were prepared for this study. These patients had a vital pulp and fell within the age range of 18 to 45, maintaining good oral hygiene. Patients with abnormal habits, traumatic occlusion, and gingival disease were excluded from the study. One of three groups was randomly allocated to the participants: Group I received Hurriseal, Group II was treated with Gluma desensitizer, and Group III functioned as the control group. After the dental desensitizer surface treatment and the evaluation of post-operative sensitivity, the teeth were subsequently restored with composite material. Results: At 1 week, Significant statistical differences among the three groups were observed (p-value = 0.006), with Gluma demonstrating the lowest Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score in comparison to Hurriseal and the Control group. Nevertheless, no statistically significant differences were identified between the groups at all other timepoints (P value > 0.05). Post-hoc comparisons among the three study groups revealed significant differences between Hurriseal and Gluma, although there were no appreciable variations found between the Gluma and Control groups. Moreover, significant differences in VAS scores within each group over time were detected (p value= 0.03, 0.001, and 0.01, for Hurriseal, Gluma and control groups, respectively. Statistically significant differences were observed mainly during the comparisons involving the 1-month timepoint in all three groups, suggesting that the most notable changes in pain levels occurred around this period within each group. Conclusion: Gluma proved to be the most efficient in minimizing postoperative sensitivity after composite restoration, whereas Hurriseal exhibited the least effectiveness in this regard. Trial registration: The research was formally recorded in the clinicaltrials.gov database. (#NCT06113874):(02/11/2023). ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT06113874