The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 9 , ISSUE 1 ( January, 2008 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Short-term Clinical Evaluation of Four Desensitizing Agents

Adeleke O. Oginni, Adeyemi Oluniyi Olusile, Cornelius Tokunbo Bamise, Oluwole O. Dosumu

Citation Information : Oginni AO, Olusile AO, Bamise CT, Dosumu OO. Short-term Clinical Evaluation of Four Desensitizing Agents. J Contemp Dent Pract 2008; 9 (1):22-29.

DOI: 10.5005/jcdp-9-1-22

License: CC BY-NC 3.0

Published Online: 01-01-2008

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2008; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim

To evaluate the effectiveness of four topical desensitizing agents in providing short-term relief of dentin hypersensitivity.

Methods and Materials

One hundred sixteen hypersensitive teeth with a positive response to intraoral testing for dentin hypersensitivity were included in this study. The four desensitizing agents tested were Duraphat™, 2% fluoride iontophoresis, copal varnish (CV), and Gluma™ Comfort Bond Plus Desensitizer. Following a specific regimen randomly determined desensitizing agents were applied in an alternating order when patients presented in a clinical setting with a complaint of hypersensitive teeth. A visual analogue scale was used to determine the degrees of hypersensitivity at three points in time. The first being just before the treatment to establish a baseline, then at 24 hours post-treatment, and the last at seven days post-treatment. Differences in the mean pain scores (MPS) between the baseline and post-treatment evaluation periods were used to determine the reduction in dentin hypersensitivity.

Results

At baseline the MPS for teeth treated with CV was 5.34 (SD: 2.39), Duraphat™ was 4.66 (SD: 1.82), Gluma™ was 6.03 (SD: 2.37), and iontophoresis was 5.76 (SD: 1.37). At 24 hours post-treatment the MPS for CV was 2.1 (SD: 0.95), Duraphat™ was 1.38 (SD;1.86), Gluma™ was 0.79 (SD;1.45), and iontophoresis was 1.62 (SD1.97). The reduction in dentin hypersensitivity at 24 hours (difference between baseline MPS and 24 hour MPS) was 5.28 for Gluma™, 4.14 for iontophoresis, 3.28 for Duraphat™, and 3.24 for CV which were all statistically significant (p<0.05). At seven days, the MPS for CV was 1.55 (SD: 1.44), Duraphat™ was 1.0 (SD;1.89), Gluma™ was 0.10 (SD;0.44), and iontophoresis was 0.3 (SD;0.98). Reduction of hypersensitivity between 24 hours and one week was 1.32 for iontophoresis, 0.69 for Gluma™, 0.55 for CV, and 0.38 for Duraphat™. Only the reductions for iontophoresis and Gluma™ were statistically significant at seven days (p<0.05).

Conclusions

All agents caused a statistically significant reduction in dentin hypersensitivity within 24 hours of treatment. Gluma™ performed best at 24 hours while iontophoresis appeared to have an edge at seven days. Long-term studies are needed to determine why this difference exists. Dentin hypersensitivity presents as an emergency condition requiring an effective means of providing immediate relief in the clinician's treatment armamentarium.

Citation

Olusile AO, Bamise CT, Oginni AO, Dosumu OO. Short-term Clinical Evaluation of Four Desensitizing Agents. J Contemp Dent Pract 2008 January; (9)1:022-029.


PDF Share
  1. Guideline for the design and conduct of clinical trials on dentin hypersensitivity. J Clin Periodontol 1997,24:808-813.
  2. Epidemiology of dental erosion and toothbrush abration. J Dent Res 1988,67:388. Abstract No. 2205.
  3. Dentin hypersensitivity: Its prevalence, Aetiology and Clinical Management. Dental Update 1992,19:407-412.
  4. Sensitivity of dentin. Oral Surg 1966,21:517-526.
  5. Dentinal hypersensitivity: a review. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2005;6(2);107-117.
  6. Dentin hypersensitivity. Monogr Oral Sci. 2006; 20:173-189.
  7. Dentin hypersensitivity an enigma? A review of terminology, epidemiology, mechanisms, aetiology and management. BDJ 1999; 187:606-611.
  8. Managing dentin hypersensitivity. J Am Dent Assoc. 2005; 137(7):990-998.
  9. Dentist's views on cervical hypersensitivity and their knowledge of its treatment. Endod Dent Traumatol 1995,1:240-244.
  10. Operative dental surgery. London: Macmillan; 1982.
  11. Dentin hypersensitivity: bleaching and restorative considerations for successful management. IDJ 2002;52(5) (supplement 1):376-384.
  12. Penetration of varnishes into demineralised root dentin in vitro,. Caries Res 1997,31:201-205.
  13. Spectroscopic investigation of the function of aqueous 2-hydroxyethylmethacrylate/glutaraldehyde solution as a dentin desensitizer. Eur J Oral Sci. 2006 114(4):354-9.
  14. Clinical evaluation of the role of glutaraldehyde in a onebottle adhesive. Am J Dent. 2002; 15(5):330-334.
  15. Clinical effectiveness of two agents on the treatment of tooth cervical hypersensitivity. Am J Dent. 2005; 18(4):291-5.
  16. Clinical Comparison of the effectiveness and longevity between Gluma Primer and Two direct application oxalate systems in reducing root surface hypersensitivity. Quintessence Int, Submitted 1996.
  17. Sensitivity of the tooth Cervix. A new therapeutic alternative. RGO 1990, 38:173-176.
  18. Treating hypersensitivity with fluoride varnish. Compend Cont Educ Dent 1999, Suppl 1:27-33.
  19. Treating cervical dentin hypersensitivity with fluoride varnish: a randomized clinical study. J Am Dent Assoc. 2006; 137:1013-20.
  20. Comparison of two topical treatments for dentin sensitivity. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2006; 14(1):38-41.
  21. Clinical evaluation of low-level laser therapy and fluoride varnish for treating cervical dentinal hypersensitivity. J Oral Rehabil. 2003; 30(12):1183-9.
  22. Current strategies for dentist-applied treatment in the management of hypersensitive dentin. Arch Oral Biol 1994, suppl 39:101-106.
  23. Fluoride levels in dentin after iontophoresis of 2% NaF. J Den Res 1984, suppl 6:897-900.
  24. Dentin sensitivity: A historical and scientific review. Prepared for Phoenix Dental Inc. Fenton Michigan 48430.
  25. Fluoride Iontophoresis versus topical fluoride application in the treatment of dentin hypersensitivity. Niger J of Clin Prac 2002,5:87-90.
  26. 2% sodium fluoride-iontophoresis compared to a commercially available desensitizing agent. J Periodontal. 2005; 76(3):351-7.
  27. Clinical trial designs for testing of products for dentin hypersensitivity – a review. J West Soc Periodont 1997,2:37-46.
  28. J Amer Dent Ass 1997, 11:925-926.
  29. Assessment of pain in cervical dentinal sensitivity studies. A review. J Clin Periodontol 1993,20:283-294.
  30. Visual analogue scales. In: Melzack R, ed. Pain assessment and measurement, pp 33-37. New York, Ravens Press.
  31. Clinical applications of visual analogue scales: a critical review. Psychological Medicine 1988; 18:1007-1019.
  32. Commission on the provision of surgical services. Report of the working party on pain after surgery. 1990;London:RCS and RC Anaes.
  33. Fluoride levels in dentin after iontophoresis of 2% NaF. J Den Res 1984, suppl 6:897-900.
  34. Effectiveness of potassium oxalate treatment on dentin hypersensitivity. Gen. Dent 1989; 37(4):330-333.
  35. A clinical trial of potassium oxalate system in the treatment of root surfaces. Arch Oral Biol 1994;39(suppl):134.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.