Dentin Sensitivity, Dentine Hypersensitivity, Tooth Sensitivity
Conditions
Keywords
Sensitivity, Laser, Hypersensitivity
Brief summary
This randomized controlled clinical trial aims to compare the effectiveness of Erbium laser (2940 nm), Diode laser (650 nm), combination Diode laser with fluoride varnish, and fluoride varnish alone in treating dentinal hypersensitivity. The study will recruit 96 adults aged 18-45 years with tooth sensitivity scores ≥4 on a 0-10 Visual Analogue Scale, randomly allocating 24 participants to each of four treatment groups. The primary outcome is reduction in tooth sensitivity measured at baseline, 1 week, 4 weeks, and 6 months post-treatment, with patient satisfaction as a secondary outcome. Conducted at Cairo University's Faculty of Dentistry, this 6-month follow-up study addresses the limitation of current treatments that provide only temporary relief, seeking to establish evidence-based protocols for optimal long-term management of dentinal hypersensitivity by evaluating whether laser therapies alone or in combination with fluoride offer superior and more durable pain relief compared to standard fluoride treatment alone.
Detailed description
This randomized controlled clinical trial investigates the comparative efficacy of different laser systems and fluoride-based treatments for managing dentinal hypersensitivity, a prevalent clinical condition characterized by sharp, transient pain from exposed dentin in response to thermal, evaporative, tactile, or chemical stimuli. The study will recruit 96 participants aged 18-45 years with dentinal hypersensitivity scores ≥4 on a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), randomly allocating them into four equal groups (n=24 each): Group 1 receiving Erbium:YAG laser treatment (2940 nm, 80mJ, 2Hz) which works through thermal tubule occlusion; Group 2 receiving Diode laser photobiomodulation therapy (650 nm, 100mW, 2J total dose) targeting neural modulation; Group 3 receiving combination therapy of Diode laser with 5% sodium fluoride varnish to exploit synergistic mechanisms; and Group 4 receiving fluoride varnish alone as the control comparator. The primary outcome measures dentinal hypersensitivity reduction using VAS scores (0-10 scale) assessed through standardized evaporative stimulus tests at baseline, 1 week, 4 weeks, and 6 months post-treatment, while secondary outcomes include patient satisfaction and treatment tolerability. Conducted at the Conservative Dentistry Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Cairo University, with blinded outcome assessors and standardized protocols, this superiority trial addresses the clinical need for evidence-based, long-term effective treatments for dentinal hypersensitivity by comparing individual laser modalities against combination therapy and established fluoride treatments, potentially establishing optimal therapeutic protocols that provide both immediate relief and sustained tubule occlusion or neural modulation for improved patient quality of life.
Interventions
OTHERErbium laser (2940 nm): Infrared light energy
The lasers emit light energy in the infrared and visible spectrum, which is fundamentally different from ionizing radiation (like X-rays or gamma rays) that can damage DNA. Dental lasers work through photobiomodulation and thermal effects, not through radiation exposure.
OTHERDiode laser (650 nm): Visible red light energy
Non-ionizing radiation or more accurately as optical energy devices, not ionizing radiation.
DRUGFluoride varnish
Biological Intervention
Sponsors
Cairo University
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
SINGLE (Outcomes Assessor)
Masking description
This randomized controlled trial uses a single-blind, parallel-group design to compare four treatments for dentinal hypersensitivity in 96 participants. Using computer-generated randomization and sealed envelope allocation, participants are equally divided into four groups receiving Erbium laser, Diode laser, combination Diode laser with fluoride, or fluoride alone. The study employs single-blind masking where outcome assessors and statisticians remain blinded to treatment assignments, while sham procedures (simulated laser/fluoride applications) minimize bias where complete blinding is impossible. Participants are followed for 6 months with Visual Analogue Scale measurements at baseline, 1 week, 4 weeks, and 6 months to assess treatment effectiveness using standardized protocols and pre-calibrated examiners.
Intervention model description
This randomized controlled trial uses a single-blind, parallel-group design to compare four treatments for dentinal hypersensitivity in 96 participants. Using computer-generated randomization and sealed envelope allocation, participants are equally divided into four groups receiving Erbium laser, Diode laser, combination Diode laser with fluoride, or fluoride alone. The study employs blinded outcome assessors, sham procedures to minimize bias, and follows participants for 6 months with Visual Analogue Scale measurements at baseline, 1 week, 4 weeks, and 6 months to assess treatment effectiveness.
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 45 Years
Healthy volunteers
No
Inclusion criteria
* Adults aged 18-45 years * Both sexes eligible * Good general health status * At least one tooth with cervical dentin hypersensitivity (CDH) * Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) pain score ≥ 4 on evaporative stimulus test using dental syringe air jet * Willing to participate and provide informed consent
Exclusion criteria
* Active carious lesions or defective restorations requiring treatment * Loss of dental tissue requiring restorative treatment * Previous professional desensitizing treatment within 6 months prior to recruitment * Use of desensitizing toothpastes within 3 months prior to study * Current use of anti-inflammatory drugs or analgesics at time of recruitment * Pregnant or breastfeeding women * Inability to comply with study protocol or follow-up requirements
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Dentinal Hypersensitivity Assessment | at baseline, 1 week, 4 weeks, and 6 months post-treatment | Dentinal Hypersensitivity Assessment Using Visual Analogue Scale |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Patient Satisfaction | at baseline, 1 week, 4 weeks, and 6 months post-treatment | The secondary outcome measures patient satisfaction with treatment using a categorical Yes/No assessment. Participants report their overall satisfaction with the assigned intervention based on perceived pain relief. |
Outcome results
None listed