Clinical Comparative Evaluation of Nd:YAG Laser and a New Varnish Containing Casein Phosphopeptides‐Amorphous Calcium Phosphate for the Treatment of Dentin Hypersensitivity: A Prospective Study

Abstract

Purpose:The aim of this study was to compare the effect of Nd:YAG laser to that of a new varnish: MI Varnish with RECALDENT (GC), for the treatment of dentin hypersensitivity, with a follow-up of 6 months. Dentinal hypersensitivity was evaluated using a new thermal test never before used on dental tissue. Materials and Methods: A split-mouth design was used where teeth on one side received the same type of treatment. Twelve patients suffering from dentin hypersensitivity were chosen. Fifty-four teeth were divided into 27 pairs. Twenty-seven teeth received the Nd:YAG laser treatment, and the 27 contralateral teeth received MI Varnish application. Five parameters were measured, and the measurements were taken before treatment at baseline (T0), after 1 week (T1), 1 month (T2), 3 months (T3), and 6 months (T4) of the application. Air stimulation to obtain the Schiff air score, the score of discomfort according to the visual analog scale (VAS), the tactile score, and the thermal test that determines the minimum cold-stimulating temperature and the maximum heat-stimulating temperature were all used to assess sensitivity. Statistical analyses of the data were performed, and the significance level was set at p ࣘ 0.05. Exact Fisher tests and Chi-Square tests were conducted to compare percentages. Results: There was a clear decrease in dentin hypersensitivity for both treatments (Nd:YAG laser and MI Varnish) especially between baseline and 1 week, with maintenance of this state through the 6-month follow-up period. The difference between the two treatments was not significant, comparing, over time, the Schiff air score, the thermal test, and the VAS; however, the tactile score was significantly improved 6 months after the application of MI Varnish compared to the laser (p = 0.05). Conclusion: There was no significant difference between the two treatments, Nd:YAG laser and MI Varnish. Both treatments were effective and reduced dentin hypersensitivity immediately after treatment up to 6 months.

Laser therapy versus topical desensitising agents in the management of dentine hypersensitivity: A meta‐analysis

“…After duplicate exclusion and abstract screening, 37 studies were left for full‐text evaluation. Thirteen studies (Abed et al, 2012; Bal, Keskiner, Sezer, Acikel, & Saygun, 2015; Chebel, Zogheib, Baba, & Corbani, 2018; Guo, Kayastha, Chen, Shakya, & Chen, 2019; Kara & Orbak, 2009; Kumar & Mehta, 2005; Maximiano et al, 2019; Orhan, Aksoy, Can‐Karabulut, & Kalender, 2011; Osmari et al, 2018; Suri et al, 2016; Talesara, Kulloli, Shetty, & Kathariya, 2014; Vieira, Passos, de Assis, Mendonca, & Santiago, 2009; Yilmaz, Kurtulmus‐Yilmaz, & Cengiz, 2011) were ultimately included in the meta‐analysis. Of these included studies, eight (Abed et al, 2012; Bal et al, 2015; Chebel et al, 2018; Osmari et al, 2018; Suri et al, 2016; Talesara et al, 2014; Vieira et al, 2009; Yilmaz et al, 2011) and five (Guo et al, 2019; Kara & Orbak, 2009; Kumar & Mehta, 2005; Maximiano et al, 2019; Orhan et al, 2011) studies had split‐mouth and parallel designs, respectively.…”

“…The study included 1,053 teeth with DH, and of these, 280, 232 and 541 teeth were treated with Nd:YAG laser, diode laser and topical desensitising agents, respectively. Seven studies (Abed et al, 2012; Chebel et al, 2018; Guo et al, 2019; Kara & Orbak, 2009; Kumar & Mehta, 2005; Maximiano et al, 2019; Talesara et al, 2014) compared Nd:YAG laser with conventional treatment using topical desensitising agents; the remaining six studies (Bal et al, 2015; Orhan et al, 2011; Osmari et al, 2018; Suri et al, 2016; Vieira et al, 2009; Yilmaz et al, 2011) compared diode laser with topical desensitising agents. We found no eligible studies of participants receiving other types of laser treatments such as Er:YAG and CO 2 lasers.…”

“…This may be due to the following: First, both lasers and topical desensitising agent treatments work similarly by occluding the dentinal tubules. Thus, in both cases, the precipitate seems to be unable to survive the acidic challenge of the oral environment, and hypersensitivity may recur (Chebel et al, 2018). Besides this, daily toothbrushing, interference from acidic food intake and incorrect occlusion might affect the desensitisation effect (Talesara et al, 2014).…”

Effect of the casein phosphopeptide-amorphous calcium phosphate fluoride (CPP-ACPF) and photobiomodulation (PBM) on dental hypersensitivity: A randomized controlled clinical trial

“…Few studies evaluate desensitizing products based on calcium and phosphate [47]. No studies assess the CPP-ACPF+PBM association in the DH treatment, hindering the results comparison with the literature [27].…”

Low and High output power of 810nm Diode Laser: a new combined protocol to treat the Dentine Hypersensitivity evocated in presence of Non-Carious Cervical lesions.

“…The severity of symptoms does not depend on the breadth and depth of lesions, but on the number of non-occluded tubules exposed to the oral cavity, consequently the sealing of exposed and patent tubules should reduce or eliminate the pain and discomfort of the patient. Several treatments belonging to the tubule-occluding agent family [5] have been proposed including protein binding and calcium compounds deposition within tubules with casein phosphopeptide [6], peritubular mineral deposition and sodium uoride (NaF). Unfortunately, these treatments, as well as the use of nerve depolarization therapies (topical potassium nitrate), could be ineffective or might produce short-lived desensitizing effects [7].…”