格鲁玛脱敏剂治疗基牙制备后牙本质过敏的即刻疗效观察

可摘局部义齿、固定桥修复基牙制备时,常需磨去部分牙体组织,致部分牙本质暴露,大多数修复性牙本质不能立即形成,患者会感到冷、热、酸、甜刺激痛等不适。以往临床上常采用各种方法,但操作复杂,效果不稳定。作者采用新型材料—一格鲁玛(Gluma)脱敏剂对口腔修复科基牙制备后牙本质过敏患者进行了治疗,取得了满意的疗效。 1 材料与方法 1.1 临床资料 口腔修复科门诊因基牙制备而导致牙本质过敏的患者176人,其中男94人,女82人,年龄26～77岁,共244颗牙,所有患者基牙制备时均未行局部麻醉。随机分为两组:格鲁玛脱敏剂(Heraeus公司)治疗组:103人(男53人,女50人,平均46.5岁),139颗牙;脱敏糊剂(我院自制,主要含氟化钠)治疗组:73人(男41人,女32人,平均48.3岁),105颗牙。     

格鲁玛脱敏剂用于预防基牙预备后牙本质过敏疗效观察

目的 观察评价格鲁玛脱敏剂对冠桥活髓基牙预备后牙本质过敏的预防效果。方法 对 53例123个活髓基牙预备后,随机分为2组,分别用格鲁玛脱敏剂和临时冠处理,观察其处理前后即刻脱 敏效果、1周后粘固及3月后的脱敏效果。结果 处理前后即刻疗效,实验组与对照组无显著差异;在1 周冠桥粘固后及3月后疗效,实验组与对照组有显著差异(p<0.05)。结论 格鲁玛脱敏剂对冠桥活髓基牙 预备后预防牙本质过敏有较理想的效果。     

BisBlock脱敏剂治疗牙本质过敏疗效观察

目的观察BisBlock脱敏剂治疗牙本质过敏症的疗效。方法牙颈部楔状缺损致敏感患牙240颗,实验组120颗,用BisBlock治疗,对照组120颗用极固宁治疗。结果实验组与对照组的有效率比较:即刻疗效无显著差异,6个月及1年后差异有显著性(P<0.05,P<0.01)。结论BisBlock可用于治疗牙本质过敏症。     

Systemp脱敏剂治疗牙本质敏感症的疗效观察

目的 :观察Systemp脱敏剂治疗牙本质敏感症的临床疗效。 方法 :采用量化观察指标 ,对治疗前后不同时期的观察结果进行统计学分析。结果 :治疗后不同时期、不同牙位牙本质敏感程度均较治疗前明显降低。结论 :Systemp脱敏剂是一种较理想的治疗牙本质敏感症药物     

中药脱敏剂用于治疗牙本质过敏的效果比较观察

目的：观察研究中药脱敏剂用于治疗牙本质过敏症的临床疗效。方法：选取牙本质过敏的患者164例,随机分为研究组82例（患牙196颗）,对照组82例（患牙196颗）,分别使用中药脱敏剂和氟化钠甘油进行治疗。观察两组患者在治疗后即刻、3个月后、6个月后的疗效,并进行统计学分析。结果：中药脱敏剂组的疗效优于对照组,有显著性差异（P〈0.05）。结论：中药脱敏剂操作方便、高效,是适合临床应用的脱敏剂。     

3种家用脱敏剂阻塞牙本质小管的实验研究

目的 观察3种家用脱敏剂对牙本质小管的堵塞作用以比较它们的脱敏效果.方法 制备敏感牙本质盘模型,分别采用不同的家用脱敏剂进行刷牙实验,以空白牙膏为对照.通过扫描电镜观察各组处理前后牙本质形态,电子能谱分析其表面元素变化,并采用图像分析软件处理扫描电镜图片,计算堵塞率.结果 扫描电镜发现实验牙膏均能部分堵塞牙本质小管,但与对照组相比几种家用脱敏剂堵塞效果更加显著(P＜0.05),堵塞方式各异,组间无统计学差异(P＞0.05).能谱分析证实堵塞物均含有F有效元素.结论 3种家用脱敏剂均能有效地堵塞牙本质小管,具有一定程度的脱敏作用.     

MS Coat脱敏剂治疗牙本质敏感症的临床效果

目的探讨MS Coat脱敏剂治疗牙本质敏感症的临床效果。方法牙本质敏感症患者57例96颗患牙分为3组,MSCoat脱敏组34颗、极固宁脱敏组32颗,75%氟化钠甘油组30颗。对比治疗后即刻、治疗后3个月的临床疗效。结果治疗后即刻,MSCoat脱敏组、极固宁脱敏组、75%氟化钠甘油组的有效率分别为94.12%、93.75%、70.00%;治疗后3个月,3组有效率分别为88.24%、87.50%、60.00%。治疗后即刻及治疗后3个月比较,MSCoat脱敏组与极固宁脱敏组疗效差异均无统计学意义,而与75%氟化钠甘油组差异有统计学意义。结论 MSCoat治疗牙本质敏感症确切有效。     

迪散脱敏剂治疗牙本质过敏临床观察

目的对比评价迪散特效牙齿脱敏剂与常规脱敏剂治疗牙本质过敏的临床疗效。方法因(牙合)面磨耗致牙本质过敏的第一、第二磨牙900颗,平均分为实验组(迪散脱敏剂组)、对照Ⅰ组(Gluma脱敏组)、对照Ⅱ组(75％氟化钠甘油组)。同时取离体牙36颗,平均分成3组,标本制作方法与临床组相同,进行扫描电镜观察结果实验组总有效率95.66％;对照Ⅰ组为85.67％;对照Ⅱ组为60.33%。实验组疗效优于两对照组,差异有显著性(P<0.01)。结论迪散特效牙齿脱敏剂可用作脱敏材料。     

微波治疗牙本质过敏98例临床观察

目的：探讨微波在牙本质过敏症中的疗效。方法：随机选择门诊牙本质过敏症患者98例134个牙，随机分为治疗组、对照组各49例。治疗组采用微波治疗，对照组采用格鲁玛脱敏剂(Gluma)治疗：评价治疗后即刻、2周、3个月、6个月疗效。结果：治疗组疗效显著优于对照组。结论：微波治疗牙本质过敏症疗效显著，是一种有效的治疗方法。     

3种脱敏剂治疗牙本质敏感症的疗效比较

###############################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################     

GLUMA脱敏剂与复合树脂充填治疗重症牙本质过敏症的临床疗效观察

目的 观察复合树脂充填治疗重症牙本质过敏症前应用Gluma脱敏剂减少术后敏感性的有效性。方法 重症牙本质过敏症患者68例,共118颗磨牙,随机分为治疗组34例,60颗磨牙,用GLUMA脱敏剂脱敏治疗后光固化复合树脂充填;对照组34例,58颗磨牙,用光固化复合树脂直接充填,在统一标准下进行即刻和1个月,3个月后的疗效对照分析。结果 在3次复查时,治疗组有5例出现术后敏感症状。而对照组有21例出现术后敏感症状。两组间有显著性差异,治疗组明显优于对照组。结论 用复合树脂充填治疗重症牙本质过敏症前使用GLUMA脱敏剂脱敏治疗可有效减少充填术后牙齿敏感症状的出现。     

中药抗敏剂治疗牙本质过敏症的临床研究及扫描电镜观察

目的:探讨中药抗敏剂治疗牙本质过敏症的疗效及作用机制。方法:将中药抗敏剂制备成漱口剂、涂擦剂和糊剂 3种剂型,分组进行临床应用,与对照组进行对比,观察各组治疗后即刻、3个月及半年的临床疗效。通过扫描电镜观察中药抗敏剂对牙本质小管的作用。结果:糊剂联合载药牙列托盘治疗牙本质过敏症与漱口剂、涂擦剂和对照组对比有显著统计学差异(P<0. 05)。扫描电镜观察中药抗敏剂作用后,牙本质小管开口基本消失。结论:中药抗敏剂可有效堵塞牙本质小管,治疗牙本质过敏症,联合载药牙列托盘疗效更为持久。     

三种脱敏剂治疗牙本质过敏症的临床研究

目的:探讨有效治疗牙本质过敏症的临床药物。方法:将105例患者完全随机分为3组,每组35例,分别采用硝酸银、极固宁、中药脱敏糊剂3种药物进行脱敏治疗,观察各组治疗后即刻、3个月、半年的临床疗效。结果:在即刻、3个月,50ml/L硝酸银与脱敏糊剂、极固宁组无显著差异,而在半年50ml/L硝酸银与另2组差异有显著性。结论:50ml/L硝酸银、脱敏糊剂、极固宁均可堵塞牙本质小管治疗牙本质过敏症,但50ml/L硝酸银疗效更为持久、有效。     

3种脱敏剂治疗牙本质过敏症的比较研究

目的比较有效治疗牙本质过敏症的3种临床药物。方法将100例患者的240颗患牙随机分为3组,分别用Gluma、中药脱敏糊剂和自酸蚀黏接剂I-bond治疗1疗程,即刻和3个月后采用卡方检验比较结果。结果3种脱敏剂的即刻有效率均较高,3个月后观察Gluma组及中药脱敏糊剂组疗效相似,I-bond组疗效下降差异有显著性。结论Gluma和中药脱敏糊剂为相对快速有效的牙本质脱敏剂。     

Er��YAG��������Gluma���������������С��Ч���о�

目的探讨Er:YAG激光与Gluma脱敏剂联合应用对牙本质小管的封闭作用。方法选取2010年3—6月于山西医科大学口腔医院口腔颌面外科因正畸拔除的24颗前磨牙,制成厚约2mm的牙本质片。根据其表面处理方式的不同随机分为4组:对照组、Er:YAG激光组、Gluma脱敏剂组、联合应用组(Er:YAG激光联合Gluma脱敏剂),每组6颗前磨牙。处理后,扫描电镜观察各组牙本质小管形态特征,并测量牙本质小管口的直径和相对面积。结果联合应用组中牙本质小管口的直径和相对面积均明显小于其他各组,且差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论 Gluma和Er:YAG联合应用对牙本质小管的封闭作用优于单独应用Gluma脱敏剂或Er:YAG激光。     

The Effectiveness of Systemp.desensitizer in the treatment of dentine hypersensitivity.

PURPOSE: This study reports the effectiveness of Systemp.desensitizer (Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein), when used both with and without an acid-etch step, in the treatment of patients with dentine hypersensitivity in UK dental practices. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten general dental practitioners (GDPs) were selected from two practice-based research groups. The GDPs were each requested to use Systemp.desensitizer in the treatment of at least ten patients who presented with pain due to dentine hypersensitivity. Systemp.desensitizer was applied to the sensitive dentine area in strict accordance with the manufacturer's handling instructions, except that the patients were divided into two groups. For the first, group NE, the procedure was to isolate the tooth, gently blot it dry with cotton wool pellets, rub Systemp.desensitizer into the tooth for 20 seconds, then gently air-dry it. For the second, group E, the procedure was identical except that after isolation, the treatment area was etched for 15 seconds with 35% phosphoric acid. Patients were asked to complete a pro forma using a 10 cm visual analogue scale designed to provide details of the extent of their pain before treatment, 24 hours post-treatment, one week post-treatment, one month post-treatment, and three months post-treatment. The zero end of the scale was marked 'no pain' and the 10 cm end was marked 'extreme pain'. The percentage change in the patients' perception of their pain, relative to pretreatment, was calculated using repeated measures analysis and suitable follow-up confidence intervals for the mean changes in perceived pain. Comparisons were then made between the treatment groups NE and E. RESULTS: Ninety-one patients completed the first pro forma and 77 completed all the pro formas. Overall, there was a significant reduction in pain at each of the time points after treatment but the pattern of pain reduction across the two groups was different. In general, the non-etched group (group NE) saw an 'immediate' reduction in pain which was then fairly consistent across the longer term, whilst, in general, the etched group (group E) saw less reduction in pain 24 hours after treatment, and then further reduction in pain at both one week and one month after treatment. Thus the non-etched group experienced an early reduction whilst the etched group took longer to perceive a reduction in pain; however, there were no statistically significant differences between the reductions in pain scores between the two groups at any of the time points after treatment. CONCLUSION: It is concluded that Systemp.desensitizer was effective in reducing pain from dentine hypersensitivity in the patients treated, and this finding was unaffected by whether or not the tooth was acid-etched prior to application of the reagent.     

MS COAT治疗牙颈部牙本质过敏症的疗效观察

目的观察新型脱敏剂MSCOAT治疗牙颈部牙本质过敏症的短期疗效。方法选取患有牙颈部牙本质过敏症的患者53人,患牙82颗,随机分成MSCOAT处理组和75％氟化钠甘油脱敏剂处理组（对照组）,采用可视分级评价法（VAS法）评价患牙脱敏治疗前、后的敏感性,观察治疗后即刻、治疗后1周、1个月、3个月的疗效。结果与治疗前相比,治疗后即刻、1周、1个月、3个月时MSCOAT治疗组患牙的敏感性显著降低,其VAS降低值明显多于对照组（P〈0．001）,即MSCOAT脱敏效果优于对照组。结论脱敏剂MSCOAT的脱敏效果优于75％氟化钠甘油脱敏剂,是一种临床疗效较好的治疗牙颈部牙本质过敏症的脱敏剂。     

Bonding to dentine with a simplified Gluma system

In the present study, a number of modifications were introduced in the so-called Gluma resin--a new, simplified bonding system. The amount of acetone in its formulation was altered, or the acetone as well as part of the water were substituted by one of several volatile compounds with the purpose of obtaining a pretreatment of easier clinical application. Some modifications of the pH of the mixtures were also tried. Dentine specimens for shear bond testing were prepared and conditioned with an aluminium oxalate/glycine solution. The dentine surfaces were then treated with the modified Gluma resin mixtures before the placement of the composite resin. Gluma resin formulations containing tetrahydrofuran resulted in acceptable bond strengths, and with formulations of reduced pH, high bond strengths were obtained.     

Efficacy of Gluma Desensitizer on dentin hypersensitivity in periodontally treated patients

The aim of this double-blind, controlled, split-mouth designed clinical trial was to assess the effect of a single application of Gluma Desensitizer on alleviating dentin hypersensitivity. Twelve subjects entered the study and ten completed the protocol. Each subject had two teeth treated: one with Gluma Desensitizer according to the manufacturer's instructions and one with water. The assessment of pain was performed with the VAS (Visual Analogue Scale), after tactile (probe), thermal (cold blast of water) and thermal/evaporative (cold blast of air) stimuli at baseline, immediately after treatment, after 1 week and after 4 weeks. The mean VAS values for the test and control teeth were compared by the paired t test (alpha = 0.05). Repeated measurements ANOVA was used to compare the different experimental times. The results showed that for test teeth, at baseline, mean VAS values were 1.76 (+/- 2.82), 7.10 (+/- 2.10) and 4.75 (+/- 2.65), and, after 4 weeks, the mean values were 1.70 (+/- 2.31), 5.50 (+/- 3.30) and 4.61 (+/- 3.14), respectively for probe, water and air stimuli. For the control teeth, at baseline, the mean VAS values were 1.86 (+/- 2.92), 6.61 (+/- 2.31) and 4.08 (+/- 2.91) and, after 4 weeks, 2.66 (+/- 3.07), 6.32 (+/- 2.94) e 4.76 (+/- 3.26). There were no statistically significant differences between test and control teeth at any time. No intra-group differences were demonstrated either. It was concluded that Gluma Desensitizer had no effect on hypersensitive teeth from periodontally treated patients for a period up to 4 weeks.     

三种牙本质脱敏剂治疗（牙合）支托窝牙本质敏感效果分析

目的观察比较诺华敏（NovaMin）、格鲁玛脱敏剂（Gluma）和劲润牙本质保护膜（HybridCoat）3种脱敏剂对验支托窝牙本质敏感治疗的效果。方法选择175颗制备验支托窝的天然牙,随机使用NovaMin、Gluma和HybridCoat进行脱敏,NovaMin组56颗,Gluma组60颗,HybridCoat组59颗,使用视觉模拟评分法记录其敏感度,比较其在连续脱敏5d后即刻、1个月、2个月和3个月的脱敏效果。结果3组患者（牙合）支托窝连续脱敏治疗后,NovaMin组在1个月（P=0．027）、2个月（P=0．023）时的脱敏有效率均高于Gluma组,Gluma组（P=0．040）和HybridCoat组（P=0.012）的即刻脱敏有效率均高于各自3个月时的脱敏有效率,但3个月时组间脱敏有效率差异均无统计意义（P〈0．05）。连续脱敏治疗后,NovaMin组的即刻VAS值高于Gluma组和HybridCoat组（P〈0．05）,而在治疗后1个月和2个月,NovaMin组的VAS值均低于另外2组（P〈0．05）,到3个月时,3组的VAS值差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。结论NovaMin脱敏效果持久性好于Gluma和HybridCoat。