One of the most widely used esthetic restorations in dentistry is composite. The widespread application of composites can be related to advancements in biomaterials. However, due to various factors, composites are commonly associated with dental sensitivity. Hence, the present study evaluates and compares the effectiveness of three desensitizing agents in reducing post-treatment sensitivity for Class I composite restoration. Eighty subjects with Class I cavities were selected according to the inclusion criteria, and a randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical trial was carried out. Twenty patients were randomly assigned to four groups: Group C (Control group), Group GL (Gluma group), Group SF (Shield Force Plus group), and Group TC (Telio CS group). The desensitizers were applied after Class 1 cavity preparation and acid etching in all the groups, except the Control group, and thereafter, composite restoration was completed in a conventional manner. Questionnaires were provided to all the participants to record the post-operative pain/sensitivity level according to the visual analogue scale (VAS) on intake of cold drinks, intake of hot drinks, and intake of sugar for different periods of time. Significant variation was observed between the three desensitizers for all three stimuli. However, no significant variations were seen with the various age groups and between the maxillary and the mandibular teeth at the different time periods. Group GL performed better than Group SF and Group TC. It can be proposed that the application of the desensitizers reduced the post-restorative sensitivity in the composite restorations and improved acceptance.

Interocclusal records (IORs) created with bite registration materials (BRMs) accurately reflect the opposing teeth’s physiological and anatomical associations in digital and traditional dentistry. This study assessed the linear dimensional accuracy of vinyl polysiloxane-based scannable and transparent BRMs over obligatory clinical time intervals (1, 24, 72, and 168 h/s). A total of 3 scannable [Flexitime Bite, Occlufast CAD, Virtual CADBite] and 3 transparent [Maxill Bite, Charmflex Bite, Defend ClearBite] VPS-based BRMs were divided into 28 subgroups by time interval: 1, 24, 72, and 168 h/s. Stereomicroscope measurements of 420 standardised disk-shaped specimens with three distinct linear distances between crossing vertical and horizontal lines were taken. Comparisons with the conventional BRM determined the scannable and transparent BRMs’ accuracy, while comparisons with die dimensions yielded linear dimensional changes. Statistical analysis used median rank scores, interquartile range, and median. Using a one-way ANOVA rank and Dunn test, differences were assessed between and within groups at a probability ‘p’ value of 0.05 (p ≤ 0.05). Mean linear dimensions for CAD and transparent IOR materials were [−0.06 (−0.24%) to −0.15 (−0.6%)] and [−0.06 (0.24%) to −0.10 (0.40%)] millimetres, respectively. Virtual CADBite and Maxill Bite had the lowest linear disagreement after 1 h, but both showed significant variations at 7 days. Other commercial brands maintained their clinically acceptable linear accuracy (0.11). Flexitime Bite (CAD) was the sole material with a linear accuracy above the clinical threshold. IOR shrinkage reduced the linear dimensions in all materials. Until 7 days, all IOR materials except Flexitime bite (CAD) were clinically correct. Virtual CADBite and Maxill bite changed significantly during 1 h and 7 days.