title: Short-term clinical evaluation of post-operative sensitivity with bonded amalgams. Clinical evaluation of a resin-based desensitizing agent and a self-etching adhesive on the reduction of postoperative sensitivity of amalgam restorations. Reduction of postoperative pain: a double-blind, randomized clinical trial. Comparative evaluation of 2% sodium fluoride iontophoresis and other cavity liners beneath silver amalgam restorations. Clinical microleakage evaluation of a cavity varnish. Effect of different liner treatments on postoperative sensitivity of amalgam restorations. Postoperative pain following bonded amalgam restorations.
abstract: PURPOSE To compare the in vivo short-term post-operative sensitivity of teeth restored with amalgam using a  bonded resin liner vs. teeth restored using a copal varnish liner . MATERIAL S AND METHODS 20 patients received Class I or Class II contralaterally paired restorations which were placed at the same appointment . All restorations were placed by the same operator using an identical technique except that , in each r and omized pair , one was lined with an adhesive resin ( Scotchbond Multi- Purpose Plus ) while the other was lined with copal varnish . ( Plastodent ) Patients were provided visual analog scale response forms , instructed in their use , and requested to complete and return a form reporting their degree of sensitivity at baseline and on days 1 , 3 , 7 , 14 , and 30 post-operatively . Data from the response forms were analyzed for differences using a paired t-test . RESULTS A response rate of 90 % ( 18/20 ) was achieved for the complete 30-day assessment . Increases in thermal sensitivity beyond baseline were seen in 13 of the 18 subjects involving 12 restorations lined with copal varnish and 10 lined with adhesive resin . Typically , sensitivity peaked on day 1 or day 3 and diminished to pre-operative levels by day 30 . Only three subjects reported greater sensitivity at day 30 than at baseline . No significant difference in post-operative sensitivity was found between the two cavity lining material s at any post-operative interval AIM The aim of this r and omized , double blind clinical trial was to compare three lining material s ( Adper Prompt L-Pop , VivaSens , and Copalite ) versus unlined restorations on postoperative cold sensitivity of class I amalgam restorations . METHODS AND MATERIAL S Potential subjects were screened for the presence of four initial class I carious lesions on posterior teeth . Each tooth was assigned to treatments according to a r and omized block design . After cavity preparation , teeth were lined with either VivaSens , Adper Prompt L-Pop , or Copalite , and one tooth remained unlined and served as a control . The cavities were filled with high copper amalgam ( Oralloy ) . The time taken for a subject to respond to a st and ardized cold stimulus ( CRM ) was recorded at baseline , 24 hours , one week , and one month after treatment . Participants filled out a self-report question naire at each time point . Data was gathered by analysis of variance ( ANOVA ) and Duncan Multiple Comparisons tests ( alpha=0.05 ) . RESULTS Twenty subjects participated in this study . Comparisons within each group found no significant reduction in mean CRM for the Adper Prompt L-Pop group ( P>0.05 ) , but a significant difference in mean CRM for the VivaSens group was observed at one week and one month intervals after restoration ( P<0.05 ) . Copalite and the unlined groups showed significant mean CRM reductions after one day ( P<0.05 ) . No significant differences between groups receiving Adper Prompt L-Pop and Copalite were found at any time point ( P>0.05 ) . VivaSens showed more cold sensitivity than Adper Prompt L-Pop at one week and one month recalls ( P<0.05 ) , while the most cold sensitivity was found in the unlined group . CONCLUSION Adper Prompt L-Pop and Copalite reduced postoperative sensitivity to cold more than VivaSens and unlined groups at all assessment time points , 24 hours , one week , and one-month post treatment . The subjects receiving Copalite , VivaSens , and unlined restorations experienced greater sensitivity to cold at one month compared to baseline , while subjects receiving the Adper Prompt L-Pop liner experienced no greater sensitivity to cold from baseline to one month . CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE Adper Prompt L-Pop as a liner under spherical high copper amalgam successfully reduced cold postoperative sensitivity The authors investigated the capability of two commonly used basing techniques to reduce  postoperative sensitivity  . The authors measured the time it took the subjects to respond to a st and ardized stimulus of cold water ( cold response measure , or CRM ) at baseline and one week after treatment . The authors found no significant reduction in the mean CRM for the group receiving Amalgambond Plus ( Parkell ) , but they did find a significant decrease in the mean CRM for the group receiving Copalite ( Harry J. Bosworth Co. ) with or without Vitrebond ( 3 M ) . The authors concluded that the subjects in the Amalgambond Plus group experienced no more sensitivity to cold at one week postoperative than they did at baseline , while the subjects in the Copalite/Vitrebond group did BACKGROUND This study was design ed to compare 2 % sodium fluoride ( NaF ) iontophoresis with other cavity liners . MATERIAL S AND METHODS This study was carried out in 30 patients in the age group 10 - 14 years with bilateral carious permanent first molars . The study evaluated the use of 2 % NaF iontophoresis as a cavity liner and also compared its desensitizing effect with varnish and an adhesive bonded liner . Sensitivity gradings were done on a subjective verbal rating scale . RESULTS All the liner treatments decreased the sensitivity following liner application . However , decrease of sensitivity in the case of 2 % NaF iontophoresis was more compared with that of varnish and adhesive bonded liner . The results were statistically significant . CONCLUSIONS It was found that 2 % NaF iontophoresis was more effective in reducing the postoperative sensitivity compared with that of varnish and scotchbond multi purpose This clinical study evaluated the  microleakage effectiveness of a cavity varnish when used in combination with two types of amalgam : a spherical particle and a dispersed phase alloy . Calcium hydroxide was utilized as the microleakage detection agent . Copalite showed a reduction in microleakage when it was employed with the spherical particle alloy used in this study . This study clinical ly demonstrated that Copalite is not totally effective in eliminating microleakage OBJECTIVE The purpose of this clinical study was to assess the sensitivity experienced and reported by patients following treatment of primary carious lesions with Class I or Class II amalgam restorations .  METHOD AND MATERIAL S Only previously untreated teeth were selected . The cavity preparations were treated according to one of four regimens : group 1 = no liner ; group 2 = two coats of a copal varnish ; group 3 = a dentin adhesive resin liner ; group 4 = a resin-modified glass-ionomer liner . Patients were contacted on days 2 and 7 postoperatively and question ed regarding the presence or absence of sensitivity . If sensitivity was experienced , they were asked which stimuli created the sensitivity , the length of time it lasted , and its intensity on a subjective scale . If sensitivity was experienced on day 7 , patients were also contacted on days 14 , 30 , and 90 to assess the degree of sensitivity . Nineteen teeth were included in each of the four groups . RESULTS By days 2 and 7 , no significant difference existed among groups ; by day 14 , 22 % of restorations in group 2 and 17 % of those in group 3 were sensitive , while teeth in groups 1 and 4 exhibited no sensitivity reactions . CONCLUSION Use of a resin-modified glass-ionomer liner or no dentin treatment result ed in short-term sensitivity in fewer than one third of the teeth . Almost one third of the teeth restored with a dentin adhesive resin liner or copal varnish exhibited initial sensitivity , which lasted up to 30 days in a few teeth Sixty subjects were r and omized into two groups . The time , in seconds , that it took subjects to respond to a st and ardized cold stimulus was recorded at baseline and again 1 week following treatment . During the intervening week subjects filled out three self-report question naires about pain from exposure to cold and several other common sources of postoperative pain . These question naires were filled out after 1 day , again 3 days after the first question naire , and 3 days after the second . Subjects mailed the question naires in immediately to provide three independent reports about cold sensitivity . The group receiving an OptiBond adhesive liner under their amalgam restorations was not found to be any less sensitive to cold , either by timed response to a cold stimulus or by self-report of pain , than the group receiving conventional liners and bases
target: Due to the low quality , small sample sizes or lack of adequate reporting of the outcome data , the evidence is inadequate to cl aim or refute a difference in postoperative sensitivity between different dental liners .
background: Since August 2009 , members of the Primary Care Dentistry Research Forum ( www.dentistry research .org ) have taken part in an online vote to identify questions in day-to-day practice that they felt most needed to be answered with conclusive research .