Suppr超能文献

Gluma与D/Sense脱敏剂治疗非手术牙周治疗引起的牙根敏感疗效的评估与比较

Evaluation and Comparison of Efficacy of Gluma and D/Sense Desensitizer in the Treatment of Root Sensitivity Induced by Non-Surgical Periodontal Therapy.

作者信息

Al-Qahtani Saad Mohammed

机构信息

Department of Periodontics and Community Dental Sciences, King Khalid University, Abha, Asir, Saudi Arabia.

出版信息

Open Access Maced J Med Sci. 2019 May 29;7(10):1685-1690. doi: 10.3889/oamjms.2019.344. eCollection 2019 May 31.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Dentinal hypersensitivity is one of the most common sequels of non-surgical periodontal therapy. Resulted discomfort may restrain patients from oral hygiene maintenance, thus affects the long-term success of periodontal therapy. So, it becomes a prime concern of the clinician to manage the post-operative hypersensitivity.

AIM

This clinical investigation aimed to evaluate and compare the efficacy of D/Sense and Gluma in preventing post-operative sensitivity after non-surgical periodontal therapy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The present randomised, double-blind, split-mouth study was conducted on forty-five (22 male, 23 female) systemically healthy patients, with the mean age of 40 ± 17.5 years. Visual Analogue scale was used to evaluate root sensitivity after application of tactile and cold stimuli at baseline, 1, 2, 4 and 6 weeks after scaling and root planing. After scaling and root planning, the sites were randomly divided into different groups for the application of desensitising agents. Collected data were analysed by using, analysis of variance (ANOVA) for inter-group and paired t-test for intra-group comparisons.

RESULTS

No adverse or side effects were reported by any of the patients throughout the study period. Gluma showed a statistically significant reduction in the VAS score for root sensitivity as compared to D/Sense, at 1, 2- and 4-weeks follow-up period (p < 0.05). Whereas, at 6th-week follow-up, both the solution showed almost similar score for root hypersensitivity. Intragroup comparison for D/Sense revealed a significant difference in scores from baseline to all intervals (p < 0.05), except baseline to 6 weeks (p > 0.05). Whereas Gluma showed a significant difference in scores from baseline to 2nd-week follow-up (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The result of the present investigation revealed that application of Gluma® resulted in better control on iatrogenic root hypersensitivity as compared to the D/Sense during the initial follow-up period.

摘要

背景

牙本质敏感是非手术牙周治疗最常见的后遗症之一。由此产生的不适可能会抑制患者保持口腔卫生,从而影响牙周治疗的长期效果。因此,如何处理术后敏感成为临床医生首要关注的问题。

目的

本临床研究旨在评估和比较D/Sense和Gluma在预防非手术牙周治疗术后敏感方面的疗效。

材料与方法

本随机、双盲、分口研究对45例(22例男性,23例女性)全身健康的患者进行,平均年龄为40±17.5岁。采用视觉模拟量表在基线、洁治和根面平整后1周、2周、4周和6周时,施加触觉和冷刺激后评估牙根敏感性。洁治和根面平整后,将部位随机分为不同组,用于涂抹脱敏剂。收集的数据采用组间方差分析(ANOVA)和组内配对t检验进行分析。

结果

在整个研究期间,所有患者均未报告任何不良反应或副作用。在1周、2周和4周的随访期内,与D/Sense相比,Gluma在牙根敏感性VAS评分上有统计学显著降低(p<0.05)。而在第6周随访时,两种溶液在牙根过敏方面的评分几乎相似。D/Sense的组内比较显示,从基线到所有时间段的评分均有显著差异(p<0.05),除了基线到6周(p>0.05)。而Gluma从基线到第2周随访的评分有显著差异(p<0.05)。

结论

本研究结果表明,在初始随访期内,与D/Sense相比,应用Gluma®能更好地控制医源性牙根敏感。

相似文献

1
Evaluation and Comparison of Efficacy of Gluma and D/Sense Desensitizer in the Treatment of Root Sensitivity Induced by Non-Surgical Periodontal Therapy.
Open Access Maced J Med Sci. 2019 May 29;7(10):1685-1690. doi: 10.3889/oamjms.2019.344. eCollection 2019 May 31.
2
Efficacy of Gluma Desensitizer on dentin hypersensitivity in periodontally treated patients.
Braz Oral Res. 2006 Jul-Sep;20(3):252-6. doi: 10.1590/s1806-83242006000300013.
3
Evaluation of instant desensitization after a single topical application over 30 days: a randomized trial.
Aust Dent J. 2015 Sep;60(3):336-42. doi: 10.1111/adj.12341. Epub 2015 Jul 24.
4
Root-dentin sensitivity following non-surgical periodontal treatment.
J Clin Periodontol. 2000 Sep;27(9):690-7. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-051x.2000.027009690.x.
7
Efficacy of Diode Laser and Gluma on Post-Preparation Sensitivity: A Randomized Split-Mouth Clinical Study.
J Esthet Restor Dent. 2016 Nov 12;28(6):405-411. doi: 10.1111/jerd.12230. Epub 2016 Jul 21.

本文引用的文献

1
Evaluation of Five Different Desensitizers: A Comparative Dentin Permeability and SEM Investigation .
Open Dent J. 2017 Jan 31;11:15-33. doi: 10.2174/1874210601711010015. eCollection 2017.
3
A double blind controlled trial comparing three treatment modalities for dentin hypersensitivity.
Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2012 May 1;17(3):e483-90. doi: 10.4317/medoral.17594.
5
Efficacy of Gluma Desensitizer on dentin hypersensitivity in periodontally treated patients.
Braz Oral Res. 2006 Jul-Sep;20(3):252-6. doi: 10.1590/s1806-83242006000300013.
6
An overview of nonsurgical and surgical therapy.
Periodontol 2000. 2004;36:35-44. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0757.2004.00073.x.
7
The long-term effectiveness of five current desensitizing products on cervical dentine sensitivity.
J Oral Rehabil. 2004 Apr;31(4):351-6. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2842.2003.01241.x.
8
A systematic review of the prevalence of root sensitivity following periodontal therapy.
J Clin Periodontol. 2002;29 Suppl 3:173-7; discussion 195-6. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-051x.29.s3.10.x.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验