We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website and to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage. You will find more information in our privacy policy. By continuing to use our website, you agree to this. Yes, I agree
International Poster Journal of Dentistry and Oral Medicine



Forgotten password?


Int Poster J Dent Oral Med 15 (2013), No. 1     15. Mar. 2013

Int Poster J Dent Oral Med 2013, Vol 15 No 1, Poster 633

Effect of Desensitizer Application Mode on Dentin De- and Remineralization

Language: English

PD Dr. med. dent. Christian R. Gernhardt, Anja Rother, Prof. Dr.med. dent. Hans-Günter Schaller, Dr. med. dent. Anne Francke-Freudenberg, PD Dr. med. dent. Katrin Bekes,
Department of Operative Dentistry and Periodontology, Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle, Germany

March 21st-24th, 2012
AADR / CADR Annual Meeting
Tampa, Florida, USA


The aim of the present study was to determine the effect of four different desensitizing agents (Gluma Desensitizer, Admira Protect, Hyposen, VivaSens) applied two different modes on root surface de- and remineralization in vitro.

Material and Methods

The root surfaces of 90 freshly extracted caries-free human molars were thoroughly cleaned, thereby removing the cementum. The teeth were then coated with acid-resistant nail varnish, exposing a rectangular windows. All specimens were demineralized (De) for 14 days with acidified gel (HEC, pH 4.8, 37 degrees C). Before remineralization (Re) using a NaF-containing calcium-phosphate buffer solution one window was covered. Beside an untreated control group, the specimens were distributed among two main groups: In one group (A) the desensitizer was applied after demineralization, in the other subgroup (B) the desensitizer was applied before demineralization. From each tooth, two dentinal slabs were cut. The depth of the demineralized areas was determined using a polarized light microscope.

Fig. 1: Different experimental groups. Four different desensitizers were used in each maingroup.


Following lesion depths (in microns) were evaluated (Table 1, Figure 5).
The comparison between de- and remineralized groups showed a significant reduction of lesion depth in all cases (p < 0.05, Tukey's test). In all cases application of the desensitizers prior to demineralisation resulted in significantly decreased lesion depths compared to the demineralization lesion depths without desensitizer application (p < 0.05, Tukey's test).

Fig. 2: Graphically expression of the results of group A and B, Demineralization - Desensitizer Application -Remineralization. Fig. 3: Graphically expression of the results of group A and B, Desensitizer Application - Demineralization - Remineralization.
Fig. 4: Lesion after De- and Remineralization. The differnece betwenn reminieralization (left part) and demineralization (right part) is clearly visible. (Magnification 100x).  
Group Control group Demineralization – Desensitizer Application – Remineralization Desensitizer Application – Demineralization – Remineralization
  untreated Gluma Admira Protect Hyposen Vivasens Gluma Admira Protect Hyposen Vivasens
Lesion De Re De Re De Re De Re De Re De Re De Re De Re De Re
Mean 134.2 95.3 132.0 105.3 139.4 74.0 128.2 75.9 123.0 85.0 103.5 87.3 80.28 66.3 82.1 62.3 120.4 91.6
Table 1: Mean values (in µm) within the different groups


Within the limitations of an in vitro investigation it can be concluded that the demineralization of the root surface can be hampered by the application of desensitizing agents in both modes in vitro. Furthermore, remineralization might not be negatively affected by the used sealants.


µm = micrometer

This Poster was submitted by PD Dr. med. dent. Christian R. Gernhardt.

Correspondence address:
PD Dr. med. dent. Christian R. Gernhardt
Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg
University School for Dental Medicine, Department of Operative Dentistry and Periodontology
Grosse Steinstrasse 19
D-06018 Halle