Dentine hypersensitivity - Guidelines for the management of a common oral health problem

Centre for Adult Oral Health, Institute of Dentistry, Queen Mary's School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, UK.
Dental update 09/2013; 40(7):514-6, 518-20, 523-4.
Source: PubMed


Dentine hypersensitivity (DHS) remains a worldwide under-reported and under-managed problem, despite making some dental treatments more stressful than necessary and having a negative impact on the patient's quality of life. This article is designed to build dental professionals' confidence and remove any confusion regarding the diagnosis, prevention and treatment of sensitive teeth caused by dentine hypersensitivity in those patients known to be at risk. There is a need for simple guidelines, which can be readily applied in general practice. However, it is also obvious that one strategy cannot suit all patients. This review describes a DHS management scheme for dental professionals that is linked to management strategies targeted at three different groups of patient. These patient groups are: 1) patients with gingival recession; 2) treatment patients with toothwear lesions; and 3) patients with periodontal disease and those receiving periodontal treatment. The authors also acknowledge the role of industry as well as dental professionals in a continuing role in educating the public on the topic of sensitive teeth. It is therefore important that educational activities and materials for both dental professionals and consumers use common terminology in order to reduce the possibility for confusion.
This review article provides practical, evidence-based guidance on the management of dentine hypersensitivity for dental professionals covering diagnosis, prevention and treatment. Sensitivity associated with gingival recession, toothwear and periodontal disease and periodontal treatment are specifically addressed in the article.

60 Reads
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aim of the study was to determine the effects of agents toothpastes on the hydraulic conductance of dentin desensitizers "in vitro". We selected 60 third molars healthy humans, recently extracted without occlusal contact, of patients between 15-30 years, which were cleaned, disinfected (Tymol 0.1% per 24 hours) and preserved at T ° atmosphere solution for a maximum of 14 days. The crowns were sectioned perpendicular to the tooth axis under abundant refrigeration, obtaining a disc of 1 mm +/-0.1 mm. thickness for each Crown. Disks were separated into the following three groups of treatment, of 20 discs each, which were brushings (brush electrical Oral-B Pro health Power) for 2 minutes only by your face occlusal with; A: Colgate ® Sensitive Pro relief with technology Pro arginine (Colgate-Palmolive, USA), B: Sensodyne ® quick-relief (GlaxoSmitheKline, UK), and C: distilled water as a negative control. The data were statistically analyzed by Kruskall Wallis and Mann Whitney tests. The results expressed in μl*cm-2*min-1cm*H2O-1 as stockings, separated by group were; A: 0,00650 (±0. 00384), B: 0,00800(±0,00472), c:0 and 03649(±0,03042). You could be concluded with the study that two dentin desensitizers agents present significant decrease in hydraulic conductance in dentin. Statistically significant differences were found between the group control and Sensodyne ® fast relief (p = 0, 000) and between group control and Colgate ® Sensitive Pro relief (p = 0, 000). There was no difference between the two toothpastes (p = 0, 317).
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective: A controlled, clinical, double blind study was conducted to assess the efficacy of a sugar-free chewing gum containing calcium hydroxyapatite on dentin hypersensitivity, versus a placebo chewing gum with no active ingredients, after one and two weeks. Methods: One hundred and seven subjects joined the trial and were allocated into the test or the control (placebo) group by a random table. The test chewing gum contained calcium hydroxyapatite and dicalcium phosphate dihydrate; the control chewing gum was identical, but without those ingredients. Participants were required to chew two pieces of their assigned chewing gum three times a day. Dentin hypersensitivity was evaluated following three clinical test indexes (tactile, air blast, cold water) and one subjective index. Results: One hundred subjects completed the study with 50 allocated to each group. The clinical test index reductions after one and two weeks in the test group were, respectively, 36% and 54% for tactile, 35% and 66% for air blast, and 24% and 49% for cold water. The clinical test index reductions after one and two weeks in the control group were, respectively, 16% and 30% for tactile, 11% and 25% for air blast, and 14% and 31% for cold water. These reductions at one and two weeks were significant for the test group (p < 0.01). For the control group they were significant (p < 0.01) only at two weeks. The comparisons between the groups at two weeks showed a significant statistical difference between the test and the control gum for tactile (p < 0.01), for air blast (p < 0.001), for cold water (p < 0.05), and for the subjective index (p < 0.05). Conclusion: In this trial, the group using the chewing gum containing calcium hydroxyapatite had a statistically significant reduction in all clinical test indexes for dentin hypersensitivity after one and two weeks, and a statistically significant reduction compared to the control gum group.
    The Journal of clinical dentistry 08/2014; 25(2):32-6.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of a marketed stabilized stannous fluoride (SnF2) dentifrice in reducing dentinal hypersensitivity as compared to a marketed sodium fluoride (NaF)/triclosan dentifrice over an eight-week period. Methods: Adults with confirmed dentinal hypersensitivity were enrolled in this randomized and controlled, parallel group, double blind, eight-week, single-center clinical trial. Random assignment to one of two dentifrice test groups via age, gender, and thermal sensitivity of enrolled test teeth was performed at baseline, with subjects assigned to twice-daily unsupervised brushing with either the marketed SnF2 dentifrice (Oral-B Pro-Expert, 0.454% SnF2 plus 0.077% NaF) or the marketed 0.32% NaF with 0.3% triclosan/copolymer dentifrice control (Colgate Total Advanced). Tactile sensitivity (Yeaple Probe) and thermal sensitivity (airblast/Schiff Air Index) evaluations of the selected test teeth were performed at baseline pre-treatment, and again at Weeks 2 and 8 of product use to compare the dentifrices' relative hypersensitivity protection effectiveness. Results: Ninety-seven (97) of the 100 enrolled subjects completed the trial and were fully evaluable. At both Week 2 and Week 8, for both the thermal and tactile evaluation measurements, subjects brushing with the marketed SnF2 dentifrice experienced statistically significantly (p < 0.0001) superior average dentinal hypersensitivity improvement versus subjects assigned to the NaF/triclosan control dentifrice. Between groups, superior relative mean reduction in thermal Schiff Air Index favored SnF2 by 24% at Week 2 and 68% at Week 8, while greater relative mean tactile Yeaple Probe benefits were observed for SnF2 relative to the control by 114% after Week 2 and 184% at Week 8. The dentifrices were well-tolerated. Conclusion: Twice-daily brushing with a marketed SnF2 dentifrice provided superior dentinal hypersensitivity improvement versus a commercially available NaF/triclosan dentifrice, with significantly (p < 0.0001) greater relief after two weeks, and even larger relative benefits at eight weeks.
    The Journal of clinical dentistry 08/2014; 25(2):13-8.
Show more

Similar Publications