Dentin Hypersensitivity, Dentin Sensitivity
Conditions
Keywords
dentin hypersensitivity, cyanoacrylate, laser
Brief summary
This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of two treatments for dental hypersensitivity: cyanoacrylate (Super Bonder®) compared with use of low intensity laser treatment (LILT). As the cyanoacrylate is a lower cost treatment, the hypothesis in investigation is if this product is equally effective as the laser treatment.
Detailed description
The present study included 62 patients (15 male and 47 females, aged 12 to 60 years). The initial cervical dentin hypersensitivity was checked throughout a thermal test (air blast). The 434 teeth included were that with a score ≥5 in a numerical scale rating of pain. Teeth were randomly assigned according quadrants (split mouth design) - 216 were allocated to LILT group and 218 for the Super Bonder® group. Thermal tests with a tetrafluoroethane spray (Endo-Ice®) and air blast were performed and considered as baseline. Pain parameters were recorded using a numerical scale rating with 24 hours, 30, 90 and 180 days after the interventions. Quality of life of the patients was also assessed with the use of OHIP-14 at baseline and after 180 days.
Interventions
OTHERCyanoacrylate
3 applications of cyanoacrylate (48 hours interval) at the cervical region of the sensitive tooth
RADIATIONLaser
This process was conducted three times with an interval of 48 hours between applications, according to laser's manufacturer advice Clean Line Easy Laser - LILT®, Clean Line Easy Laser Doctor Dental Products Industry LTDA, BRA). For dentin hypersensitivity, the application of 1Joule/cm\^2 is recommended for eight seconds at three points along the dental neck, using the infrared wavelength (795nm).
Sponsors
Federal University of the Valleys of Jequitinhonha and Mucuri
Federal University of São Paulo
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
TRIPLE (Subject, Investigator, Outcomes Assessor)
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
12 Years to 60 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
1. patients should be in good general and dental health; 2. present complaints of dental sensitivity to cold, sweet, acidic foods and brushing; 3. present complaints of pain in teeth located in different quadrants; 4. manifest pain or discomfort upon application of the triple syringe air jet; 5. not be in current use of desensitizing agents.
Exclusion criteria
1. presence of extensive restorations and carious lesions in the sensitive teeth; 2. undergoing orthodontic treatment; 3. frequent use of analgesics, antidepressants and anti-inflammatory drugs; 4. presence of gingival inflammation; 5. non-consent of patient.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Change of the Pain Sensitivity | Baseline and 180 days | Change in pain experienced by the participants was calculated as the difference between baseline level of pain sensitivity and after 180 days. Pain was recorded using a numerical pain assessment scale with range between 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst possible pain). The higher the numbering the worse the result. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Quality of Life Improvement | Baseline and 180 days | Difference between the level of quality of life - Oral Health Impact Profile OHIP at baseline and 180 days. OHIP-14 total scale ranges from 0 to 56 points with higher scores indicating a poorer oral health-related quality of life. The response format uses a Likert-type frequency scale such as follows: very often = 4, fairly often = 3, occasionally = 2, hardly ever = 1, never = 0. Total score is obtained by summing the response codes of the 14 items constituting the measure. |
Participant flow
Recruitment details
The patients with dentin hypersensitivity were recruited through posters and folders provided at the Dental Clinics, schools, gyms and drugstores.
Pre-assignment details
The patients which had not achieved an initial level of hypersensitivity were excluded from the trial before assignment to the groups.
Participants by arm
| Arm | Count |
|---|---|
| All Study Participants In this split mouth study, teeth from the participants were randomly assigned according to quadrants, to either receive Cyanoacrylate (Superbonder) or Laser (LILT).
Cyanoacrylate: 3 applications of Superbonder (48 hours interval) at the cervical region of the sensitive tooth. LILT: 3 Low intensity laser application (48 hour interval). The application of 1Joules/cm\^2 was performed for eight seconds at three points along the dental neck, using the infrared wavelength (795nm) | 62 |
| Total | 62 |
Withdrawals & dropouts
| Period | Reason | FG000 |
|---|---|---|
| Overall Study | Lost to Follow-up | 12 |
Baseline characteristics
| Characteristic | All Study Participants |
|---|---|
| Age, Continuous | 31.4 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 10.7 |
| Sex/Gender, Customized Female | 47 participants |
| Sex/Gender, Customized Male | 15 participants |
Adverse events
| Event type | EG000 affected / at risk | EG001 affected / at risk |
|---|---|---|
| deaths Total, all-cause mortality | — / — | — / — |
| other Total, other adverse events | 0 / 62 | 0 / 62 |
| serious Total, serious adverse events | 0 / 62 | 0 / 62 |
Outcome results
Primary
Change of the Pain Sensitivity
Change in pain experienced by the participants was calculated as the difference between baseline level of pain sensitivity and after 180 days. Pain was recorded using a numerical pain assessment scale with range between 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst possible pain). The higher the numbering the worse the result.
Time frame: Baseline and 180 days
Population: 62 participants contributed with 434 teeth in a split mouth design: 216 teeth were treated with laser and 218 teeth were treated with cyanoacrylate.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cyanoacrylate | Change of the Pain Sensitivity | Baseline | 7.77 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.7 |
| Cyanoacrylate | Change of the Pain Sensitivity | 180 days | 2.57 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.9 |
| Laser | Change of the Pain Sensitivity | Baseline | 7.49 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.7 |
| Laser | Change of the Pain Sensitivity | 180 days | 2.36 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.7 |
Secondary
Quality of Life Improvement
Difference between the level of quality of life - Oral Health Impact Profile OHIP at baseline and 180 days. OHIP-14 total scale ranges from 0 to 56 points with higher scores indicating a poorer oral health-related quality of life. The response format uses a Likert-type frequency scale such as follows: very often = 4, fairly often = 3, occasionally = 2, hardly ever = 1, never = 0. Total score is obtained by summing the response codes of the 14 items constituting the measure.
Time frame: Baseline and 180 days
Population: 62 participants contributed with 62 questionnaires in each group.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cyanoacrylate | Quality of Life Improvement | Baseline | 16.87 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 9.1 |
| Cyanoacrylate | Quality of Life Improvement | 180 days | 12.05 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 8 |
| Laser | Quality of Life Improvement | Baseline | 16.87 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 9.1 |
| Laser | Quality of Life Improvement | 180 days | 12.05 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 8 |