Effectiveness of laser therapy and topical desensitising agents in treating dentine hypersensitivity: a systematic review
Department of Preventive Dentistry, West China College of Stomatology, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.Journal of Oral Rehabilitation (Impact Factor: 1.68). 05/2011; 38(5):348-58. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2010.02193.x
The aim of this systematic review was to compare the effectiveness of laser therapy with that of topical desensitising agents in treating dentine hypersensitivity. A secondary objective was to determine the safety of laser application according to the relevant studies. A systematic search was performed in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the National Research Register, the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register database to retrieve all articles that were about randomised controlled trials involving the application of laser desensitising procedures and topical desensitising agents in the treatment of dentine hypersensitivity. A total of eight trials that met all inclusion criteria involving 234 participants were reviewed. Based upon the 'quality' of evidence, one study was classified as A level, five as B level and two as C level. Owing to the heterogeneity of the studies, a meta-analysis was not performed. Half of the included studies compared GaALAS laser with topical desensitising agents, but the findings were conflicting. The remaining studies involved Nd:YAG laser, Er:YAG laser and CO2 laser, and all showed that the three types of lasers were superior to topical desensitising agents, but the superiority was slight. A systematic review of the literature indicates the likelihood that laser therapy has a slight clinical advantage over topical medicaments in the treatment of dentine hypersensitivity. More large sample-sized, long-term, high-quality randomised controlled clinical trials are needed before definitive conclusions were made.
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
- "Although the evidence from bothrandomized controlled trials and systematic reviews support the clinical use of lasers in treating DH (Deng et al. 2011; He et al. 2011; Sharif et al. 2013), further well conducted studies with appropriate clinical protocols comparing the use of both low or high frequencies and any association with the other alternatives discussed for treating DH should be implemented (Al-Sabbagh et al. 2009; Ipci et al. 2009; Petersson 2013; Schmidlin and Sahrmann 2013). "
ABSTRACT: The management of dentin hypersensitivity (DH) has been traditionally based on products or procedures (in-office [professionally-applied] and over-the-counter (OTC)/at-home) that may either block the dentin tubules on the exposed root surface or desensitise the nerves in the pulp. The clinician however is often faced with an array of products from the manufacturers all claiming to be effective in terms of both immediate and long-lasting relief from pain. Whether there is an ideal treatment or so-called gold standard for DH may be challenged. Furthermore several investigators have reported on the wide range of in-office and OTC products and procedures that have been used by clinicians in daily dental practice, and it was evident from these reports that there is considerable confusion for the clinician with regard to which of these products actually are effective in reducing DH. The aim of this chapter therefore is to review the various products and procedures that have been recommended for the treatment of DH and any novel products that have been recently introduced, together with some recommendations for future development of desensitising strategies.
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
- "In a systematic review of the articles, published through the years 2000-2010, on the effects of laser therapy on treating DH, it has generally been claimed that laser therapy for the treatment of DH is preferred to other relevant local therapies . However, further clinical long-term studies in many different samples and better qualities need to be done to prove this claim . In addition, this type of therapy is highly acceptable to patients because its proper usage has no negative impacts. "
ABSTRACT: The objective of this review is to inform practitioners about dentin hypersensitivity (DH); to provide a brief overview of the diagnosis, etiology and clinical management of dentin hypersensitivity and to discuss technical approaches to relieve sensitivity. This clinical information is described in the context of the underlying biology. The author used PUBMED to find relevant English-language literature published in the period 1999 to 2010. The author used combinations of the search terms “dentin*”, “tooth”, “teeth”, “hypersensit*”, “desensitiz*”. Abstracts and also full text articles to identify studies describing etiology, prevalence, clinical features, controlled clinical trials of treatments and relevant laboratory research on mechanisms of action were used.
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
- "To identify relevant studies, we used the following term " (dentin* OR tooth OR teeth) AND (hypersensit* OR desensiti* OR desensitize*) NOT (toothpaste OR dentifrice) " , limited to " clinical trials " and " humans " ; no language restrictions were imposed. The reference lists of previously published reviews (Canadian Advisory Board on Dentin Hypersensitivity 2003, Orchardson & Gillam 2006, West 2008, Al-Sabbagh et al. 2009, Porto et al. 2009, Cunha-Cruz et al. 2011, He et al. 2011, Sgolastra et al. 2011) were crosschecked. The literature search and data extractions (Fig. 1) were undertaken in duplicate , and quality assessment of included studies, such as randomization , allocation concealment, blinding , intention to treat and sample size calculation, was carried out independently by three authors (PY Lin, YW Cheng, CY Chu). "
ABSTRACT: Aim: Dentin hypersensitivity, caused by the exposure and patency of dentinal tubules, can affect patients' quality of life. The aim of this study was to undertake a systematic review and a network meta-analysis, comparing the effectiveness in resolving dentin hypersensitivity among different in-office desensitizing treatments. Materials and methods: A literature search was performed with electronic databases and by hand until December 2011. The included trials were divided into six treatment groups as placebo, physical occlusion, chemical occlusion, nerve desensitization, laser therapy and combined treatments. The treatment effects between groups were estimated with standardized mean differences by using a Bayesian network meta-analysis. Results: Forty studies were included. The standardized mean difference between placebo and physical occlusion was -2.57 [95% credible interval (CI): -4.24 to -0.94]; placebo versus chemical occlusion was -2.33 (95% CI: -3.65 to -1.04); placebo versus nerve desensitization was -1.72 (95% CI: -4.00 to 0.52); placebo versus laser therapy was -2.81 (95% CI: -4.41 to -1.24); placebo versus combined treatment was -3.47 (95% CI: -5.99 to -0.96). The comparisons of the five active treatments showed no significant differences. Conclusions: The results from network meta-analysis showed that most active treatment options had significantly better treatment outcome than placebo.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.