Abstract

Background: This study compared the effectiveness of in-office and at home treatments for cervical dentine sensitivity (CDS) from non-carious cervical lesions.

Methods: Sixty participants with CDS were selected and randomly allocated into six groups of treatment: LA: gallium aluminium arsenide laser and LP: laser-placebo (4 in-office sessions); RMGI: resin-modified glass-ionomer and ARC: adhesive resin cement (in-office single session); DD: stannous fluoride desensitizing dentifrice and RD: regular dentifrice (30 days at home-use). CDS was assessed with the visual analogue scale at pre-treatment, immediately after treatment and at 1, 2 weeks, 1 and 2 months after the end of treatment. Data were compared using the Kruskal-Wallis and Friedman tests (p < 0.05).

Results: All treatments, except ARC, showed a significant CDS reduction at different times when compared to pre-treatment (p < 0.05). Resin-modified glass-ionomer, showed statistical differences (p < 0.05) when compared to LA, LP and ARC groups immediately after treatment. Dentifrices (desensitizing and regular) showed statistical differences (p < 0.05) immediately after the 30 days of use.

Conclusion: All strategies, except ARC, were capable to reduce CDS at different times and maintain the relief up two months. Resin-modified glass-ionomers and dentifrices were the most effective strategies in reducing CDS just after the end of the proposed treatment.

Keywords: Dentine Sensitivity; Dentifrices; Effectiveness; Laser Therapy; Resin-Modified Glass-Ionomer

References

1. Yoshizaki KT., et al. “Clinical features and factors associated with non-carious cervical lesions and dentin hypersensitivity”. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 44 (2017): 112-118. 
2. Teixeira DNR., et al. “Prevalence of noncarious cervical lesions among adults: A systematic review”. Journal of Dentistry 95 (2020): 103285.
3. Igarashi Y., et al. “The prevalence and morphological types of non-carious cervical lesions (NCCL) in a contemporary sample of people”. Odontology 105 (2017): 443-452.
4. Brannstrom M. “Sensitivity of dentine”. Oral Surgery Oral Medicine Oral Pathology 2 (1996): 517-526.
5. Mason S., et al. “Impact of toothpaste on oral health related quality of life in people with dentine hypersensitivity”. BMC Oral Health 19 (2019): 226.
6. Moraschini V., et al. “Effectiveness for dentine hypersensitivity treatment of non-carious cervical lesions: a meta-analysis”. Clinical Oral Investigations 22 (2018): 617-631. 
7. Celik EU., et al. “Three-year clinical evaluation of high-viscosity glass ionomer restorations in non-carious cervical lesions: a randomised controlled split-mouth clinical trial”. Clinical Oral Investigations 23 (2019): 1473-1480.
8. Moura GF., et al. “Four session Protocol Effectiveness in Reducing Cervical Dentin Hypersensitivity: A 24-Week Randomized Clinical Trial”. Photobiomodulation, Photomedicine, and Laser Surgery 37 (2019): 117-123.
9. Tirapelli C., et al. “The effect of a novel crystallised bioactive glass-ceramic powder on dentine hypersensitivity: a long-term clinical study”. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 38 (2011): 253-262. 
10. Gillam DG., et al. “Comparison of two desensitizing agents for the treatment of cervical dentine sensitivity”. Endodontics and Dental Traumatology 13 (1997): 36-39.
11. Guentsch A., et al. “Biomimetic mineralization: long-term observations in patients with dentin sensitivity”. Dental Materials 28 (2012): 457-464.
12. Parkinson CR., et al. “Three randomized clinical trials to assess the short‐term efficacy of anhydrous 0.454% w/w stannous fluoride toothpastes for the relief of dentin hypersensitivity”. American Journal of Dentistry 29 (2016): 25-32.
13. Takamizawa T., et al. “Laboratory evaluation of dentin tubule occlusion after use of dentifrices containing stannous fluoride”. Journal of Oral Sciences61 (2019): 276-283.
14. Freitas S., et al. “Dentin hypersensitivity treatment of non-carious cervical lesions -a single-blind, split-mouth study”. Brazilian Oral Research29 (2015): 45.
15. Femiano F., et al. “Effectiveness on oral pain of 808 nm diode laser used prior to composite restoration for symptomatic non-carious cervical lesions unresponsive to desensitizing agents”. Lasers in Medical Science 32 (2017): 67-71.
16. Lopes AO., et al. “Evaluation of different treatment protocols for dentine hypersensitivity: an 18-month randomised clinical trial”. Lasers in Medical Science 32 (2017): 1023-1030.
17. Dantas EM., et al. “Clinical Efficacy of Fluoride Varnish and Low-level Laser Radiation in Treating Dentin Hypersensitivity”. Brazilian Dental Journal 27 (2016): 79-82.
18. Marto CM., et al. “Evaluation of the efficacy of dentin hypersensitivity treatments- A systematic review and follow-up analysis”. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 46 (2019): 952-990.
19. Faul F., et al. “G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for social, behavioural, and biomedical sciences”. Behavior Research Methods 39 (2007): 175-191. 
20. Rosas S., et al. “Comparison between the Visual Analog Scale and the Numerical Rating Scale in the perception of esthetics and pain”. International Orthodontics15 (2017): 543-560.
21. Terenzi M., et al. “Effectiveness of Clinpro XT in Reducing Dentin Permeability and its Resistance to Acid Challenges”. Oral Health and Preventive Dentistry 16 (2018): 339-344.
22. Machado AC., et al. “Effect of in office desensitizers containing calcium and phosphate on dentin permeability and tubule occlusion”. Journal of Dentistry86 (2019): 53-59.
23. Garofalo SA., et al. “In Vitro Effect of Innovative Desensitizing Agents on Dentin Tubule Occlusion and Erosive Wear”. Operative Dentistry 44 (2019): 168-177.
24. Virupaxi SG., et al. “Comparative evaluation of longevity of fluoride release from three different fluoride varnishes: an in vitro study”. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research 10 (2016): ZC33-ZC36.
25. Madruga MM., et al. “Evaluation of dentin hypersensitivity treatment with glass ionomer cements: A randomized clinical trial”. Brazilian Oral Research 5 (2017): 31:e3.
26. Canali GD., et al. “Clinical efficacy of resin-based materials for dentin hypersensitivity treatment”. American Journal of Dentistry30 (2017): 201-204.
27. Muhler JC., et al. “Studies on stannous fluoride and other fluorides in relation to the solubility of enamel in acid and the prevention of experimental dental caries”. Journal of Dental Research 33 (1954): 33-49. 
28. Algarni AA., et al. “The impact of stannous, fluoride ions and its combination on enamel pellicle proteome and dental erosion prevention”. Public Library of Science One 10 (2015): e0128196.
29. Cheng X., et al. “Comparative effect of a stannous fluoride toothpaste and a sodium fluoride toothpaste on a multispecies biofilm”. Archives of Oral Biology 74 (2017): 5-11.
30. Cvikl B., et al. “Stannous chloride and stannous fluoride are inhibitors of matrix metalloproteinases”. Journal of Dentistry 79 (2018): 51-58.
31. Creeth J., et al. “Randomised clinical studies investigating immediate and short-term efficacy of an occluding toothpaste in providing dentine hypersensitivity relief”. BMC Oral Health 4 (2019): 98.
32. Creeth J., et al. “Three randomized studies of dentine hypersensitivity reduction after short-term SnF2 toothpaste use”. Journal of Clinical Periodontology 46 (2019): 1105-1115.
33. Kimura Y., et al. “Treatment of dentine hypersensitivity by lasers: a review”. Journal of Clinical Periodontology 27 (2000): 715-721.
34. Gerschman JA., et al. “Low level laser therapy for dentinal tooth hypersensitivity”. Australian Dental Journal 39 (1994): 353-355.
35. Hashim NT., et al. “Effect of the clinical application of the diode laser (810 nm) in the treatment of dentine hypersensitivity”. BMC Research Notes 7 (2014): 31.
36. Naghsh N., et al. “Evaluation of the Effects of 660-nm and 810-nm Low-Level Diode Lasers on the Treatment of Dentin Hypersensitivity”. Journal of Lasers in Medical Sciences 11 (2020): 126-134.
37. Maximiano V., et al. “Nd: YAG laser and calcium sodium phosphosilicate prophylaxis paste in the treatment of dentine hypersensitivity: a double-blind randomised clinical study”. Clinical Oral Investigations 23 (2019): 3331-3338. 
38. Szesz A., et al. “Effect of flowable composites on the clinical performance of non-carious cervical lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis”. Journal of Dentistry 65 (2017): 11-21.
39. Canali CD., et al. “One-year clinical evaluation of bulk-fill flowable vs regular nano-filled composite in non-carious cervical lesions”. Clinical Oral Investigations 23 (2019): 889-897. 
40. Oz FD., et al. “An 18-month clinical evaluation of three different universal adhesives used with a universal flowable composite resin in the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions”. Clinical Oral Investigations 23 (2019): 1443-1452.
41. Nocca G., et al. “Effects of barriers on chemical and biological properties of two dual resin cements”. European Journal of Oral Sciences 123 (2015): 208-214.
42. Ladha K and Verma M. “Conventional and contemporary luting cements: an overview”. Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society 10 (2010): 79-88.

Citation

Citation: Camila Tirapelli., et al. “Clinical Comparison of Treatments for Dentine Sensitivity from Non-carious Cervical Lesions". Acta Scientific Dental Sciences 4.8 (2020): 58-67.

Copyright

Copyright: © 2020 Camila Tirapelli., et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.