Clinical evaluation of desensitizing treatments for cervical dentin hypersensitivity

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare different treatments for dentin hypersensitivity in a 6-month follow-up. One hundred and one teeth exhibiting non carious cervical lesions were selected. The assessment method used to quantify sensitivity was the cold air syringe, recorded by the visual analogue scale (VAS), prior to treatment (baseline), immediately after topical treatment, after 1 week, 1, 3 and 6 months. Teeth were randomly assigned to five groups (n = 20): G1: Gluma Desensitizer (GD); G2: Seal&Protect (SP); G3: Oxa-gel (OG); G4: Fluoride (F); G5: Low intensity laser-LILT (660 nm/3.8 J/cm²/15 mW). Analysis was based on the non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test that demonstrated statistical differences immediately after the treatment (p = 0.0165). To observe the individual effects of each treatment, data was submitted to Friedman test. It was observed that GD and SP showed immediate effect after application. Reduction in the pain level throughout the six-month follow-up was also observed. In contrast, LILT presented a gradual reduction of hypersensitivity. OG and F showed effects as of the first and third month respectively. It can be concluded that, after the 6-month clinical evaluation, all therapies showed lower VAS sensitivity values compared with baseline, independently of their different modes of action.

A CLINICAL COMPARISON of IN -OFFICE MANAGEMENT OF DENTIN HYPERSENSITIVITY IN A SHORT TERM TREATMENT PERIOD

“…Gluma Desensitizer contains hydroxy-ethylmethacrylate (HEMA) with glutaraldehyde resulting in its desensitizing effect by precipitation of plasma proteins in the dentinal tubules which reduces dentinal permeability and occludes the peripheral tubules. In the reaction of glutaraldehyde with dentin, the two groups of aldehydes present in glutaraldehyde interlace themselves with the amino groups of dentin collagen, leading to a fixing of proteins, forming a barrier 13 .The positive results of Gluma Desensitizer presented in this study are in agreement with the results of similar studies carried out earlier 14,15 .After 2 weeks the effectiveness of gluma was better than GC tooth mousse as repeated application of GC is required for its effectiveness. Thus stating that its treatment is short lived requiring a home based treatment too.…”

Dentin hypersensitivity treatment of non-carious cervical lesions – a single-blind, split-mouth study

“…13,14 Fluorides are one of the substances recommended for CDH treatment because they occlude the dentinal tubules by forming insoluble precipitates. Dentin permeability decreases, but the effect is short lived because fluoride interacts with calcium and calcium fluoride subsequently dissociates.…”

“…Dentin permeability decreases, but the effect is short lived because fluoride interacts with calcium and calcium fluoride subsequently dissociates. 14,15 However, potassium nitrate reduces nervous excitability. 16 This effect is the mechanism of action currently accepted for the material tested in T1.…”

“…Dentin that is devoid of a smear layer is highly sensitive because products and stimuli are easily disseminated to the pulp. 2,14,16 Furthermore, an incompatibility between the gel and the adhesive The same letter indicates a lack of significant difference (p < 0.05). The same letter indicates a lack of significant difference.…”

Role of low-level laser therapy in treatment of orofacial pain: A systematic review

“…Dentine hypersensitivity can be eliminated by narrowing or occlusion of the tubules opening resulting in reducing the fluid movement inside the dentinal cananlicules. [8] Diode lasers in the range of 660-830 nm have been tried in the treatment of dentinal hypersensitivity. Significant reduction in dentine sensitivity has been seen using diode laser in noncontact mode during treatment sessions after 15 min and 7 days of first application.…”