Content area
Full text
Received Nov 1, 2017; Revised Jan 29, 2018; Accepted Feb 11, 2018
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
1. Introduction
1.1. Overview
Dentine hypersensitivity (DH) affects approximately 10–30% of the adult population and may have a direct impact on the individual’s quality of life [1]. There are numerous over-the-counter (OTC) and professionally applied (in-office) products and techniques available for the treatment of DH. Recently, the use of bioactive glasses in toothpaste formulations has been advocated as a possible long-term solution for managing DH [2]. Currently, most of the research activity focusses on the hydrodynamic theory as the basis for the therapeutic treatment of DH. The rationale being that, by blocking the dentinal tubules (tubular occlusion), there will a corresponding reduction of the fluid flow through dentine (dentine permeability) and a subsequent relief of pain [1, 3]. The mechanisms underpinning the hydrodynamic theory are generally investigated in several recognized models, for example, in vitro, in situ, in vivo human studies and animal studies (for nerve desensitizing mechanisms). The aim of the present in vitro study, therefore, was to investigate the effectiveness of experimental bioactive glasses designed for toothpaste formulations.
An ideal desensitizing agent should have a rapid action with long-term effects, be non-irritant to pulp, painless, easy to apply, and should not stain the tooth [4]. Toothpastes are considered the most economic method for using desensitizing in-home treatments and generally are classified by the regulatory authorities on the ingredients within the formulation (e.g., cosmetic and medicine/drug) [5, 6]. There are a plethora of products that are being developed for this condition, but currently, there does not appear to be one ideal product that can completely resolve the problem.
Bioactive materials have been considered for both medical and dental use particularly in bone defects. For example, in 1969, bioactive glasses were discovered as a second-generation alternative for the bonding of bone to an implant within the host’s tissue through a chemical reaction. One of the advantages of these materials was that they have the capacity of producing hydroxyapatite and induce osteogenesis in physiological systems [7]. Since 1985, 45S5 Bioglass has been used clinically,...