Clinical Efficacy of Different Dentin Desensitizers.

Creative Commons License

Eyüboğlu G., Naiboğlu P.

Operative dentistry, cilt.45, 2020 (SCI-Expanded) identifier identifier identifier

  • Yayın Türü: Makale / Tam Makale
  • Cilt numarası: 45
  • Basım Tarihi: 2020
  • Doi Numarası: 10.2341/19-258-c
  • Dergi Adı: Operative dentistry
  • Derginin Tarandığı İndeksler: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus, EMBASE, MEDLINE
  • Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi Adresli: Evet

Özet

SUMMARY

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical efficacy of widely used dentindesensitizing agents (DDAs) (Teethmate Desensitizer, Clinpro White Varnish, Shield Force Plus, and Gluma) in the treatment of dentin hypersensitivity (DH) according to different evaluation parameters over a four-week follow-up period. Methods and Materials: This study was a randomized, single-center, controlled, parallel group study involving 144 teeth in 40 subjects. The baseline DH levels of the subjects were determined using different evaluation parameters. Daily life hypersensitivity and evaporative air stimulus hypersensitivity scores were recorded using a visual analog scale (VAS), and tactile hypersensitivity scores were recorded

using a Yeaple probe and measured in grams and on the VAS. Subjects who experienced evaporative air stimulus DH (30-80 mm on the VAS) and tactile hypersensitivity (10-50 g with the Yeaple probe) were included in the study. After application of the DDAs, these evaluation parameters were recorded throughout the follow-up period (immediately after application and at one day and two and four weeks postapplication).

Results: All four DDAs demonstrated clinical dentin-desensitizing effects throughout the follow-up period according to evaporative air hypersensitivity, tactile sensitivity (g-VAS), and daily life hypersensitivity scores (p,0.05). Only Clinpro White Varnish had tactile sensitivity (g) scores that were similar at baseline and the one-day follow-up (p.0.05). A comparison of DH-reducing effects among the DDAs revealed that they yielded different results immediately after application and at the one-day follow-up time point, depending on which evaluation parameter was used. However, all DDAs showed similar DH-reducing effects at the two- and four-week follow-up time points.

Conclusions: Teethmate Desensitizer, Clinpro White Varnish, Shield Force Plus, and Gluma DH showed clinical efficacy for four weeks.

DDAs may produce inconsistent clinical evaluation scores not only across different evaluation parameters but also between early and later follow-up time points.