Document Type : Original Article
Authors
1
Conservative Dentistry Department, Faculty of Dentistry, The British University in Egypt, Cairo, Egypt.
2
Department of Conservative Dentistry, Cairo University and British University in Egypt, Cairo, Egypt.
3
Professor of Operative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Suez Canal University, Ismailia, Egypt.
4
Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Suez Canal University, Ismailia Egypt.
Abstract
Introduction: Dentin hypersensitivity (DH) can be defined as a short, sharp pain
arising from exposed dentin in response to thermal, tactile, osmotic, or chemicalstimuli,
which cannot be attributed to any other dental defect or pathology. The hydrodynamic
theory, the most accepted explanation, suggests that pain results from fluid movement
within tubules, which activates pulpal nerves. Management strategies aim to either
reduce nerve sensitivity or block the tubules. Aim:Thisstudy was conducted to compare
the clinical effectiveness of light-cured resin-based desensitizer and bioactive glass
powder versus fluoride varnish in treating dentin hypersensitivity (DH) in adults with
cervical non-carious lesions over a six-month follow-up period using Visual Analogue
Scale (VAS scale). Materials and Methods: A total of 75 participants fulfilling the
criteria were divided into 3 groups (n=25); group1: NCCL were treated using fluoride
varnish, group 2: NCCL was treated using “Sylc®“ air abrasion and group 3 was
treated using light cured desensitizer agent; SHIELD FORCE PLUS. Hypersensitivity
was assessed immediately, 3 and 6 months after treatment. Median and range values
were used to represent the ordinal data of the VAS. Intergroup and intragroup
comparisons were done using Mann Whitney U test and Friedman test of repeated
measures, respectively. For every test, P ≤0.05 was used as the significance threshold.
Results: The overall Effect of the 3 interventions showed a statistical significant
difference in the VAS score (P<0.001); whereas the Fluoride varnish produced the
significantly highest VAS, followed by Sylc air polishing, then light-cured desensitizer.
However, within each follow-up interval, no statistical significant difference in the VAS
scores wasfound in baseline records among the three interventions despite a remarkable
statistical significant difference within the 3 follow-up intervals. Conclusions: Lightcured desensitizing agent is an immediate and long-lasting effective method in treating
hypersensitivity of NCCL. On the other hand, fluoride varnish is still an efficient
treatment for dentin hypersensitivity but not reliable if applied in single application.
Keywords
Main Subjects
)
View on SCiNiTO