Asna Ashari Mohammad, Berijani Amirreza, Anbari Fahimeh, Yazdani Zahra, Zandian Amin
Laser Application in Medical Sciences research center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Graduated student, School of Dentistry, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
J Lasers Med Sci. 2021 Oct 19;12:e62. doi: 10.34172/jlms.2021.62. eCollection 2021.
Dentin hypersensitivity (DH) is one of the most common complaints of patients referred to a dental office, so this study aimed to compare the effectiveness of combined diode laser and GLUMA bonding therapy with combined diode laser and 5% sodium fluoride varnish in patients with DH. Sixty patients were divided into three groups (bonding, laser-bonding, laser-varnish), and before the intervention, the amount of DH was measured with the visual analogue scale (VAS) scale. In the bonding group, GLUMA Desensitizer solution was applied and then air-dried. In the bonding-laser group, first bonding was used, and then the affected tooth was irradiated with a diode laser. In the varnish-laser group, 5% sodium fluoride varnish was coated and then the laser was irradiated with the said method. DH was measured immediately after the treatment and then 2, 7 and 30 days after the treatment. Laser-varnish treatment was not different from laser-bonding treatment at all measurement times (=1). Laser-varnish and bonding treatment were not significantly different up to one week after the intervention, but on the 30 day after the intervention, the difference in pain was significant (=0.01). There was no significant difference in laser-bonding treatment up to one week after the intervention, but on the 30 day after the intervention, the difference in pain was significant (=0.003). The combined treatment with GLUMA bonding and the 660 nm diode laser is effective in reducing DH and this is more effective than GLUMA bonding alone in the long term. However, it does not have a significant advantage over the combined varnish-laser method, but it seems that due to its ease of use, it can be a suitable alternative to the varnish-laser method.
牙本质过敏症（DH）是牙科诊所中患者最常见的主诉之一，因此本研究旨在比较联合二极管激光和GLUMA粘结疗法与联合二极管激光和5%氟化钠 varnish治疗DH患者的效果。60例患者分为三组（粘结组、激光粘结组、激光varnish组），在干预前，用视觉模拟量表（VAS）测量DH的程度。粘结组应用GLUMA脱敏剂溶液，然后吹干。在激光粘结组中，首先进行粘结，然后用二极管激光照射患牙。在varnish激光组中，涂布5%氟化钠varnish，然后用上述方法照射激光。治疗后立即测量DH，然后在治疗后2、7和30天测量。在所有测量时间，激光varnish治疗与激光粘结治疗无差异（=1）。干预后一周内，激光varnish和粘结治疗无显著差异，但在干预后30天，疼痛差异显著（=0.01）。干预后一周内，激光粘结治疗无显著差异，但在干预后30天，疼痛差异显著（=0.003）。GLUMA粘结与660nm二极管激光联合治疗对降低DH有效，且长期效果优于单独使用GLUMA粘结。然而，它与联合varnish激光法相比没有显著优势，但由于其使用方便，似乎可以成为varnish激光法的合适替代方法。
