S Sajith, H P Vivek, Ray Shanvi, Sharma S Praveena, Mannepalli Abighana, Ismail Mohammad
Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Coorg Institute of Dental Sciences, Coorg, IND.
Department of Public Health Dentistry, College of Dental Sciences, Davangere, IND.
Cureus. 2024 Jul 21;16(7):e65022. doi: 10.7759/cureus.65022. eCollection 2024 Jul.
Background This study aimed to explore the potential efficacy and safety of laser therapy compared with traditional desensitizing treatments in the management of dentin hypersensitivity. Methodology A comprehensive observational study was conducted on 138 adult individuals aged 18-65 diagnosed with dentin hypersensitivity. Participants were allocated to either the laser therapy or traditional treatment group. The laser therapy group received treatment using the Fotona LightWalker® Erbium laser at 2,940 nm. The energy density was set at 20 J/cm² using continuous and contact modes, with the laser tip held perpendicularly to the irradiated site. Each session lasted five minutes, conducted bi-weekly for three months. Traditional treatment included the in-office application of 5% sodium fluoride varnish application once every 15 days for three months and the use of desensitizing toothpaste as part of regular oral hygiene routines. Follow-up assessments were conducted 6 and 12 months post-treatment to evaluate the longevity and stability of the treatment effects. Primary outcomes were assessed by dentin hypersensitivity reduction measured using Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores and tactile hypersensitivity assessments. Results Laser therapy consistently surpassed traditional treatment in reducing dentin hypersensitivity, as reflected by the significantly lower VAS scores. Notably, at 3, 6, and 12 months, laser therapy demonstrated mean VAS scores of 2.5 (±1.5), 1.2 (±0.9), and 0.6 (±0.5), respectively, while the traditional treatment group exhibited higher scores (3.8 ± 1.2, 4.5 ± 1.0, and 4.0 ± 0.7, respectively). Statistical analysis revealed that these differences were highly significant (p < 0.001). Tactile hypersensitivity assessments echoed these findings, with laser therapy consistently maintaining lower scores (0.8 ± 0.7 at 6 months, 0.4 ± 0.3 at 12 months) compared to traditional treatment (3.5 ± 1.0 at 6 months, 4.0 ± 0.7 at 12 months) with statistical significance at all time points (p < 0.001). Conclusions Although this study lacks a randomized controlled design, the observed substantial reduction in VAS scores and tactile hypersensitivity assessments, along with the favorable safety profile of laser therapy, suggest its potential as an effective alternative for managing dentin hypersensitivity.
背景 本研究旨在探讨与传统脱敏治疗相比，激光治疗在牙本质过敏管理中的潜在疗效和安全性。
方法 对138名年龄在18 - 65岁、被诊断为牙本质过敏的成年人进行了一项全面的观察性研究。参与者被分配到激光治疗组或传统治疗组。激光治疗组使用波长为2940nm的Fotona LightWalker®铒激光进行治疗。采用连续和接触模式，将能量密度设置为20J/cm²，激光头垂直于照射部位。每次治疗持续5分钟，每两周进行一次，共进行三个月。传统治疗包括每15天在诊所应用一次5%氟化钠 varnish，持续三个月，并使用脱敏牙膏作为日常口腔卫生习惯的一部分。在治疗后6个月和12个月进行随访评估，以评估治疗效果的持久性和稳定性。主要结局通过使用视觉模拟量表（VAS）评分测量的牙本质过敏减轻情况和触觉过敏评估来评估。
结果 激光治疗在减轻牙本质过敏方面始终优于传统治疗，这体现在显著更低的VAS评分上。值得注意的是，在3个月、6个月和12个月时，激光治疗的平均VAS评分分别为2.5（±1.5）、1.2（±0.9）和0.6（±0.5），而传统治疗组的评分更高（分别为3.8±1.2、4.5±1.0和4.0±0.7）。统计分析表明，这些差异具有高度显著性（p < 0.001）。触觉过敏评估也印证了这些结果，与传统治疗相比，激光治疗始终保持较低的评分（6个月时为0.8±0.7，12个月时为0.4±0.3），而传统治疗在6个月时为3.5±1.0，12个月时为4.0±0.7，在所有时间点均具有统计学意义（p < 0.001）。
结论 尽管本研究缺乏随机对照设计，但观察到的VAS评分和触觉过敏评估的显著降低，以及激光治疗良好的安全性，表明其作为管理牙本质过敏的有效替代方法的潜力。
