الفهرس 
REVIEW OF LITERATUREOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 127 |  |  |
| | | from | 127 | | |
Abstract
The study aimed to investigate the influence of desensitizing agents (Gluma and Hurriseal) on reducing of post-operative sensitivity in composite class I restoration.
Ten patients having three class I cavities were recruited and randomly allocated to randomized controlled trial Test group I received (Hurriseal) and bonding agents and composite, test group II (Gluma) and bonding agents and composite, and the control group received bonding agent and composite without desensitizer.
A post-hoc analysis was performed to examine the VAS scores within each group at different intervals. This analytical method made it possible to thoroughly analyze the variations in pain perception noted at various study points.
After a week, there were significant statistical differences (p-value = 0.006) between the three groups, with Gluma scoring lower on the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) than both Hurriseal and the Control group.
At all other time points, however, no statistically significant differences were found between the groups (P value > 0.05). Significant differences were detected between Hurriseal and Gluma in post-hoc comparisons of the three study groups; however, no significant differences were found between the Gluma and Control groups.
Furthermore, it was shown that there were substantial variations in VAS scores over time within each group (p values = 0.03, 0.001, and 0.01, for the Hurriseal, Gluma, and control groups, respectively). In all three groups, comparisons involving the 1-month time point yielded statistically significant differences, indicating that these were the most noticeable changes.
This study concluded that after composite restoration, Gluma was the most successful in reducing postoperative sensitivity, while Hurriseal was the least efficient in this regard.