• Journal of dental hygiene science
• /
• v.16 no.4
• /
• pp.272-283
• /
• 2016

This study compared and analyzed the occluding effects of fluoride compounds and desensitizers, which are commonly used in dental clinics, on dentinal tubules. This study also evaluated the persistence of the active ingredients over time by performing toothbrushing with an electric toothbrush. Thirty-five molar teeth, which had been extracted within the past 3 months from healthy people without tooth decays, amalgam fillings, or dental crowns, were divided into 4 pieces each. Of these, 135 teeth pieces were used as study specimens. These specimens were divided into a control group, an untreated group, and 5 experimental groups (acidulated fluoride gel, fluoride varnish, Gluma, Super Seal, and SE-Bond). The specimens were then subjected to toothbrushing equivalent to 1 week (140 times), 2 weeks (280 times), and 4 weeks (560 times), and the occluding effects on dentinal tubules in 3 regions of each specimen were examined under a scanning electron microscope. The fluoride varnish treated group showed the highest degree of dentinal tubule occlusion effects during the first, second, and fourth weeks of toothbrushing, with the SE-Bond treated group showing the second highest degree and the Gluma treated group showing the lowest degree. After 4 weeks of toothbrushing, the Gluma treated group and the Super Seal treated group showed the lowest degrees of dentinal tubule occlusion effects. In summary, the fluoride varnish treated group and the SE-Bond treated group displayed higher occlusion effects even after 4 weeks of treatment than did the other experimental groups. Therefore, it is the authors' belief that fluoride varnish and SE-Bond are effective for treating dentinal hyperesthesia.

• Journal of dental hygiene science
• /
• v.9 no.1
• /
• pp.121-127
• /
• 2009

A comparative analysis was conducted through this study on tooth brushing and a use of auxiliary oral hygiene devices for oral hygiene for 287 S Health College students some of whom major dental hygiene and some of whom don't relate to the department, and then has drawn out the results as below. 1. Relating to the frequency of tooth brushing, 2-3 times a day was the utmost case in both departments(p < 0.05). 2. In use of toothbrush bristle, the students of dental hygiene department used medium bristle(51.2%), while the student of other department used soft bristle(51.5%)(p > 0.05). 3. In the term of tooth brush used, 2~5 months was the utmost case in both departments(p > 0.05). 4. In tooth- brushing method, all the student of both departments said they knew how to do it(p > 0.05). 5. In the acquisition of tooth brushing methods, the students of dental hygiene acquired it from dentistry 44.4%, and the students of other department from TV or Radio 47.5% (p > 0.05)which was a quite high rate. 6. In reference to recognition level on auxiliary oral hygiene devices, dental hygiene students said Yes 79.8%, and the other side students said No 63.9%(p < 0.05). In reuse of auxiliary oral hygiene devices, a great number of students of both departments said No (p < 0.05). 8. In reference to the chance to use auxiliary oral hygiene devices, 58.1% of dental hygiene students chose them with their own judgement, and 37.8% of other department students recommended by dentist's offices(p < 0.05). 9. Relating to the reason for not using auxiliary oral hygiene devices, 38.9% of the dental hygiene students said it's bothersome, and 56.7% of the other department students said they didn't know about these things(p < 0.05). 10. In the recognition level of dental floss, in knowing the way to use it, whether or not of using it, the students of both department showed a significant difference (p < 0.05). 11. In the recognition level of floss holder and the yes or not of using it, there was an insignificant difference(p > 0.05), while in understanding of it, there was a significant difference(p < 0.05). 12. Relating to the recognition level of electric tooth brush, yes or no of using it, there wasn't a significant difference(p > 0.05). 13. In the cognition level of rubber stimulator, yes or no of using it, there wasn't much difference, while in understanding to use it, there was a significant difference(p < 0.05). 14. In the understanding level of water pik, yes or not of using it, there wasn't a great deal of difference(p < 0.05), but in inquiry of whether or not of using it, there was no difference (p > 0.05), 15. In the understanding level of tongue scraper, whether or not of using it, there wasn't much difference(p > 0.05), but in understanding to use it, there was a great deal of difference(p < 0.05). 16. In the recognition of garglin, understanding of it, and whether or not of using it, the two departments didn't show a significant difference(p < 0.05).