Skip to content

Comparative evaluation of the efficacy of desensitizing dentifrices

Comparative evaluation of the efficacy of desensitizing dentifrices for the relief of pain in patients suffering of dentine hypersensitivity

Status
Active, not recruiting
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Interventional
Source
ANZCTR
Registry ID
ACTRN12612000272897
Enrollment
87
Registered
2012-03-07
Start date
2012-07-27
Completion date
2012-12-10
Last updated
2020-01-13

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

None listed

Brief summary

Using a double-blind, randomized design, the dentifrice based on nano-crystals of carbonate hydroxyapatite is compared with two active control: a dentifrice containing strontium acetate and a dentifrice containing 8% arginine. Participant’s DH was evaluated at baseline and after three days using Airblast, Cold water, Tactile and Subjective tests.

Interventions

Arm 1: The experimental group receives a dentifrice -coming in the form of toothpaste- containing nanocrystals of zinc-carbonate-hydroxyapatite, assembled in micro-particles, that have been shown to produce in vitro remineralization of the altered enamel surfaces and to be effective in closing dentinal tubules, thus showing a potential use in desensitising dentifrices (Rimondini et al. 2007, Lee et al. 2008, Roveri et al. 2008). The patients are instructed to brush their teeth for three days, tw

Arm 1: The experimental group receives a dentifrice -coming in the form of toothpaste- containing nanocrystals of zinc-carbonate-hydroxyapatite, assembled in micro-particles, that have been shown to produce in vitro remineralization of the altered enamel surfaces and to be effective in closing dentinal tubules, thus showing a potential use in desensitising dentifrices (Rimondini et al. 2007, Lee et al. 2008, Roveri et al. 2008). The patients are instructed to brush their teeth for three days, twice a day for at least one minute and not to use any other dentifrice or desensitizing agent.

Sponsors

Coswell S.p.A.
Lead SponsorCommercial sector/Industry

Study design

Allocation
Randomised controlled trial
Intervention model
Parallel
Primary purpose
Treatment
Masking
Blinded (masking used)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
All
Age
18 Years to 70 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes

Inclusion criteria

Hypersensitive area on facial surfaces of the teeth: at least two teeth scoring five or more in at least one of the adopted sensitivity tests: Airblast and Cold Water tests; history of tooth hypersensitivity to thermal, mechanical, sweet, or sour stimuli on at least two teeth; good physical health; age between 18 and 70 years; provision of a written informed consent

Exclusion criteria

Chipped teeth, defective restorations, fractured undisplaced cuspids, deep dental caries or large restorations showing pulpal response, deep periodontal pockets, orthodontic appliances, dentures, or bridgework that would interfere with the evaluation of hypersensitivity; periodontal surgery within the previous 6 months; ongoing treatment with antibiotics and/or anti-inflammatory drugs; ongoing treatment for tooth hypersensitivity; pregnancy or lactation; chronic systemic disease

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ANZCTR · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026