The prevalence of dentine hypersensitivity in a hospital clinic population in Hong Kong

Rees, JS; Li, Jin; Lam, Stanley; Kudanowska, I.; Vowles, R.

doi:10.1016/s0300-5712(03)00092-7

Cited by 109 publications

(126 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

101

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…4,24,25 In previous clinical trials evaluating painful sensitivity in subjects, the use of more than one stimulus to evaluate this subjective condition has been recommended. 3,4,26,27 In current analysis, hypersensitive teeth were evaluated using a tactile test with a sharp dental explorer and an evaporative stimulus via an air blast from a dental air syringe. These methods were previously effective in the diagnosis and evaluation of DH.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of dentin hypersensitivity treatment with glass ionomer cements: A randomized clinical trial

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A randomized, double-blind, split-mouth clinical trial was performed compared the desensitizing efficacy of the resin-modified glass ionomer cement (GIC) ClinproTM XT (3M ESPE, Minnesota, USA) and the conventional GIC Vidrion R (SS White, Gloucester, UK) in a 6-month follow-up. Subjects were required to have at least two teeth with dentin hypersensitivity. Teeth were divided at random into 2 groups, one group received Clinpro XT and the other conventional GIC Vidrion R. Treatments were assessed by tactile and air blast tests using Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) at baseline, after 20 minutes, and at 7, 15, 21, 30, 90 and 180 days post-treatment. Twenty subjects (152 teeth) were included. Both tests (tactile and air blast) showed a significant reduction of dentin hypersensitivity immediately after the application of Vidrion R and Clinpro XT (20 min). VAS scores obtained along the 6-month follow-up were statistically lower when compared to initial rates (p < 0.05). Both GIC were able to reduce dentin hypersensitivity up to 6-month post-treatment period without statistically significant differences among them (p > 0.05). Both cements provided satisfactory results in long-term dental sensitivity reduction.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of dentin hypersensitivity treatment with glass ionomer cements: A randomized clinical trial

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The diagnosis of CDH was based on the presence of two stimuli: painful sensitivity to tactile stimulation (tip of the explorer being used in the mesial-distal direction in the cervical region of each tooth) or painful sensitivity to an evaporative stimulus (air jet triple syringe for 2-5 seconds, directed at the buccal surface of the cervical region of each tooth at a distance of 5 mm) 15 . The diagnosis of CDH was considered when at least one tooth was sensitive during the exam.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A amostra consistiu de 306 universitários entre 19 a 35 anos. Os dados foram armazenados e analisados no programa SPSS v. 15.0 for Windows. Resultado: A prevalência de provável bruxismo foi de 34,3%, não havendo predominância entre os gêneros.…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

Prevalence and potential factors associated with probable sleep or awake bruxism and dentin hypersensitivity in undergraduate students

Neta

Laurentino

Souza

et al. 2014

Rev. odontol. UNESP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Prevalence and potential factors associated with probable sleep or awake bruxism and dentin hypersensitivity in undergraduate students ResumoObjetivo: Mensurar a prevalência de provável bruxismo do sono e em vigília e de hiperestesia dentinária cervical de estudantes universitários e verificar os sintomas a eles associados. Metodologia: Este é um estudo transversal, cujo diagnóstico de provável bruxismo foi realizado pelo relato dos estudantes em ranger e/ou apertar os dentes durante o sono e em vigília combinado com o diagnóstico clínico de desgaste dentário e dor da musculatura do masseter à palpação. O diagnóstico de hipersensibilidade dentinária cervical foi realizado por testes de sensibilidade ao toque com sonda exploradora e a jato de ar da seringa tríplice. A amostra consistiu de 306 universitários entre 19 a 35 anos. Os dados foram armazenados e analisados no programa SPSS v.15.0 for Windows. Resultado: A prevalência de provável bruxismo foi de 34,3%, não havendo predominância entre os gêneros. O provável bruxismo em vigília foi o mais predominante (61,9%), ocorrendo principalmente quando o indivíduo estava em estado de concentração (63,1%). Não houve uma associação entre provável bruxismo do sono e em vigília e hiperestesia dentinária (p=0,195). Os indivíduos com provável bruxismo do sono possuíram maior chance de acordar com dor nos músculos da face (OR=14,14, IC95% 5,06-39,55) e com provável bruxismo em vigília maior chance de cansaço muscular facial ao mastigar ou falar por muito tempo (OR=2,88, IC95% 1,53-5,43) e dor nos músculos da face ao acordar (OR=5,31, IC95% 1,93-14,62). Conclusão: A prevalência de provável bruxismo foi 34,3% e de HDC 57,8%, com 22,2% destes também apresentando provável bruxismo, mas sem associação estatística. Indivíduos com provável bruxismo tendem a ter maior risco de apresentar dores faciais ao acordar e cansaço muscular facial ao falar e mastigar por muito tempo. Não houve associação entre provável bruxismo do sono e em vigília e hipersensibilidade dentinária cervical.Descritores: Bruxismo; sensibilidade da dentina; prevalência; análise multivariada. AbstractObjective: To measure the prevalence of probable sleep or awake bruxism and cervical dentin hypersensitivity of undergraduate students and to determine the symptoms associated with these conditions. Methodology: This was a cross-sectional study. A diagnosis of probable bruxism was reached when students reported clenching or grinding of the teeth during sleep and/or wakefulness, and when they also presented some of the signs and symptoms of bruxism and masseter muscle pain on palpation. Cervical dentinal hypersensitivity was diagnosed by testing for sensitivity to pain in the cervical region of the teeth. Pain was triggered either by touch (using a #5 probe) or by an air jet spray. The sample consisted of 306 university students aged between 19 and 35 years old. The data were stored and analysed using SPSS software, version 15.0 for Windows. Result: The prevalence of probable bruxism was 34.3%, with no predominance r...

show abstract

“…Air blast was applied with an air syringe for 1s at a distance of 1 cm. 7,10 The Tooth Wear Index (TWI) 11 was used to score the lesions' depth from 1 to 4 ( Table 1). The depth was measured by placing a periodontal probe perpendicular to the tooth's long axis at the center of the lesion.…”

Section: Clinical Examinations and Interventionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Neto

et al. 2015

Braz. oral res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aims to compare the in vivo effect of a desensitizing therapy associated with a restorative technique for the treatment of cervical dentin hypersensitivity (CDH) in non-carious lesions. The sample consisted of 68 teeth with moderate or severe dentin hypersensitivity in 17 individuals (one tooth per quadrant). The sensitivity levels of the teeth were scored, and the teeth were randomly distributed into four groups: T1 -desensitizing gel applied once per week until remission of pain; T2 -desensitizing gel applied once per week followed immediately by restoration with resin composite (Filtek Z250, 3M Espe); T3 -desensitizing gel once per week until remission of pain and then restoration with resin composite; and T4 -restoration with resin composite. Dentin hypersensitivity was assessed at 0, 7, 30, 90 and 180 days. The Kruskal-Wallis, Wilcoxon and Mann-Whitney (p < 0.05) tests were used to compare the treatments. The mean baseline CDH scores were T1 -2.41, T2 -2.41, T3 -2.47, and T4 -2.70 (p > 0.05). At seven and 180 days, the mean CDH scores were as follows: T1 -1.47/0.65, T2 -1.35/0.71, T3 -0.71/0.53, and T4 -1.12/0.59, all of which were significantly lower (p < 0.001) than the baseline scores. The scores at 30, 90 and 180 days were not significantly different when compared to the score of the previous period. At 180 days, CDH scores were similar among groups (p > 0.05). Teeth with moderate or severe hypersensitivity that required a filling responded similarly regardless of whether the desensitizing procedure was carried out prior to the filling.

show abstract

The prevalence of dentine hypersensitivity in a hospital clinic population in Hong Kong

Cited by 109 publications

References 20 publications

Evaluation of dentin hypersensitivity treatment with glass ionomer cements: A randomized clinical trial

Evaluation of dentin hypersensitivity treatment with glass ionomer cements: A randomized clinical trial

Prevalence and potential factors associated with probable sleep or awake bruxism and dentin hypersensitivity in undergraduate students

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About