The Effect of Three Desensitizing Agents on Dentin Hypersensitivity: A Randomized, Split-mouth Clinical Trial

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of three desensitizing agents to provide relief to dentin hypersensitivity after one session in a four-week follow-up. Forty selected patients participated in a double-blind study following a split-mouth model. One application of the desensitizing agents (A, Admira Protect [Voco]; B, Bifluorid 12 [Voco]; and C, Colgate Pro-Relief in office [Colgate Palmolive]) was performed in three different quadrants for each patient. Each tooth was evaluated by tactile and evaporative stimuli, and the sensitivity response was measured using the Visual Analogue Scale. Evaluations were performed at baseline, immediately after treatment, and after one, two, three, and four weeks. The application of Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn multiple comparisons tests (5%) for both tactile and evaporative stimuli showed that all agents presented a significant desensitizing effect. In groups A and B this relief was maintained for four and three weeks, respectively, as measured by tactile stimulus and for four weeks with evaporative stimulus. The desensitizing effect for group C was maintained for two weeks for both tactile and evaporative stimuli. It is concluded that all desensitizing agents tested were effective in reducing sensitivity compared to baseline values. One application of Admira Protect and Bifluorid 12 presented a longer-lasting desensitizing effect than did Colgate Pro-Relief (applied in the office) on both tactile and evaporative stimuli.

Efficacy of a bioactive material and nanostructured desensitizing on dentin hypersensitivity treatment

“…As in the present investigation, many studies have shown that treatment with desensitizing agents decreases hypersensitivity over time [1][2][3][4]6,7,12,15,19,22 . The acting speed of the materials used for DH treatment is an important factor to be considered.…”

“…DH etiology is due to dentin tubule exposure, manifesting as short, acute pain, and caused by thermal, chemical, and osmotic stimuli [1][2][3][4] . There are several proposed treatments, showing effectiveness in different degrees and times, but a permanent solution is not complete.…”

“…It is clinically the result of dentin exposure and is characterized by acute, short and temporary pain in response to mechanical, chemical, thermal, or osmotic stimuli and cannot be attributed to any other dental pathology [1][2][3][4] . The most widely accepted theory to explain DH is Brännström's hydrodynamic theory 5 and one of its main causes is non-carious cervical lesions such as abrasion, erosion, and abfraction 6 .…”

“…The most widely accepted theory to explain DH is Brännström's hydrodynamic theory 5 and one of its main causes is non-carious cervical lesions such as abrasion, erosion, and abfraction 6 . In addition, gingival recession also exposes the underlying dentin 1,4 .…”

Desenhos de estudos epidemiológicos boca-dividida e paralelo: uma revisão da literatura

“…Na Odontologia, esse tipo de desenho é muito usado na Periodontia, na Ortodontia e na Dentística, com maior frequência nos dois primeiros (17). Alguns exemplos podem ser citados: TORRES et al (18) realizaram um ensaio clínico boca-dividida utilizando 3 quadrantes da boca dos pacientes para avaliar a ação de três agentes dessensibilizantes na hipersensibilidade dentinária. Já MONINI et al (19) avaliaram a velocidade de retração dos caninos utilizando dois tipos de bráquetes ortodônticos, trabalhando com hemiarcadas direita e esquerda.…”