The reported prevalence of cervical dentine sensitivity (CDS) ranges from 8 to 35%. Detailed epidemiology of the condition, particularly with regard to possible causal factors, is lacking. In particular, no published data appear to exist on its prevalence in periodontal patients. The aim of the present study was therefore to determine the prevalence, distribution and severity of CDS in a population of patients referred to a Periodontology Department of a specialist postgraduate hospital. 507 patients (181 M; 326F, mean age 44.2 (SD 10.31) years) attending a periodontal clinic were assessed for CDS by a questionnaire. The results demonstrated a prevalence of CDS of 84% with no significant gender difference. 71.1% of patients perceived cold as the most common cause of discomfort. A higher prevalence of self-reported discomfort was observed between 40 and 49 years. Of the patients with a reported history of periodontal surgery (34.7%), those treated within 6 months prior to assessment appeared to be more at risk to CDS. Of the patients who received hygienist treatment (88.2%), only 10.5% reported discomfort persisting > or = 3 days after treatment. Generally, patients who complained of varying degrees of discomfort over time (84.5%) did not perceive the condition as severe and consequently did not seek treatment. The prevalence of CDS in these referred patients was very high, suggesting that periodontal diseases and/or treatment effects play a rôle in its aetiology.

The present clinical trial was designed to evaluate the effects of a bioactive glass, Perioglas, in the treatment of periodontal intrabony defects. 20 patients, 23-55 years of age (44 sites), with intrabony defects completed the 1-year study. Teeth with furcation involvement were excluded. After completion of initial therapy, defects were randomly assigned to either a test or control procedure. Following flap reflection, root planing and removal of chronic inflammatory tissue in both groups, the test defects were restored with the bioactive glass particulate material. Mucoperiosteal flaps were replaced, sutured and a periodontal dressing was used. All the patients received postoperative antibiotics and analgesics and were seen at 1 week for suture removal. Follow-up was then carried out weekly and at 3 months, 6 months, 9 months and 1 year post-surgery. Plaque score, bleeding score, probing pocket depth (PPD), probing attachment level (PAL) and gingival recession were recorded at baseline, 3 months and 1 year. Standardised radiographs for computer-assisted densitometric image analysis (CADIA) were taken at baseline, immediately post-operatively and at 1 year. The CADIA data showed a significant increase (F-ratio: 15.67, p < 0.001) in radiographic density and volume between the defects treated with the Perioglas when compared to those treated with surgical debridement only. PPD and PAL showed significant improvements in both experimental and control sites, with a greater trend to improvement in the experimental sites. It was concluded that this bioactive glass is effective as an adjunct to conventional surgery in the treatment of intrabony defects.

Recent studies have attempted to determine the prevalence of dentine hypersensitivity (DH) in both hospital and general practice. Results indicate that DH prevalence is higher in patients referred for specialist treatment than in general practice. The aim of this study was to determine perception and prevalence of DH in general practice. Completed questionnaires from 277 patients (115 males, 162 females, mean age 41.7 years [SD 14.36]) were collected. Self-reported DH prevalence (52%) was observed between the third and fourth decades, peaking in the third and in good agreement with that previously published (45.2%), and significantly more females complained of DH than males (SND=2.24, 95% CI 0.01734-0.2661). Cold was perceived as the most common cause of DH, in agreement with other studies. Only 12.6% of patients reported periodontal surgery compared to 15.5% previously. Of those who received hygiene therapy (67.9%) only 15.5% reported DH following treatment which mainly did not last >/=5 days. Most patients with DH did not perceive the condition as severe and did not seek treatment (75.1%). Only 23.3% used a desensitizing dentifrice. The results indicated that self-reporting of DH is lower than reported in a dental hospital population and was not perceived as a major dental problem by most patients in a general dental practice population.