Evaluation of Three Methods for the Treatment of Dentin Hypersensitivity: A Randomised Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVES

In this study, we aimed to compare the effectiveness of Gluma and high-power 980-nm diode laser, alone or in combination, in the treatment of cervical dentin hypersensitivity.

METHODS

A total of 20 patients (5 men and 15 women), aged 25 to 60 years, who met the inclusion criteria, were enrolled in this study. A total of 60 teeth were randomly divided into 4 groups: G1, 980 nm diode laser (in 2 sessions within a 1-week interval); G2, Gluma (in 2 sessions within a 1-week interval); G3, 980 nm diode laser plus Gluma; and G4: control. Thermal (cold spray) and air blast (air syringe of dental unit) stimuli were used to evaluate cervical dentin hypersensitivity in the patients. Their pain response was assessed using a visual analogue scale (VAS) before treatment (baseline), in the first treatment session (15 minutes after treatment), in the second treatment session (after 1 week), and in 2-week, 1-month, and 3-month follow-up sessions. The obtained data were analysed using non-parametric tests, including Kruskal-Wallis test, Friedman test, Mann-Whitney test, and Wilcoxon test, in SPSS Version 22 at a significance level of P < .05.

RESULTS

Based on the results, there was a significant difference in the average VAS scores for cold and air blast stimuli between the 4 groups 1 month after the intervention (P < .05). Meanwhile, the laser group had the lowest VAS score for cold and air stimuli. On the contrary, no significant difference was found between the 4 groups 3 months after the intervention (P ˃ .05).

CONCLUSION

The present results showed that 980-nm diode laser alone was more effective than the other 2 intervention methods for 1 month.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was registered in the Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials (IRCT20120901010703N5).