Nambiar Manjusha, Shetty Bhavya, Fazal Ibrahim, Khan Safiya Fatima, Shah Mehul A, Kamath Vignesh, Faruk Shahaziya, Jalaj Vaishnavi, N Sowmya
Department of Periodontology, Sri Rajiv Gandhi College of Dental Science and Hospital, Bangalore, Karnataka, India.
Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Dental Sciences, Ramaiah University of Applied Sciences, Bangalore, Karnataka, India.
Int J Dent. 2024 Nov 22;2024:1257136. doi: 10.1155/ijod/1257136. eCollection 2024.
In office methods for immediate relief of dentinal hypersensitivity (DH) has long been an area of research. This study compared the efficacy of 660 nm diode laser, 980 nm diode laser, and amorphous calcium phosphate-casein phosphopeptide (ACP-CPP) agent in the treatment of DH. A total of 39 patients with minimum three hypersensitive teeth in at least one quadrant were selected and randomly divided into three groups; Group A, B, and C patients were treated by 660 nm diode laser, 980 nm diode laser, and ACP-CPP agent, respectively. All the hypersensitive teeth were stimulated with tactile; thermal and air stimuli, and the pretreatment and posttreatment hypersensitivity scores were evaluated with the numeric rating scale (NRS) at baseline, 30 min, 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months. The Shapiro-Wilk test was used to determine the uniformity of the data. The Chi-square ( ) test of significance was used to compare proportions. For intergroup comparison, the Kruskal-Wallis test and the Mann-Whitney test were utilized. At 30 min and 1 week, the 980 nm laser was more effective than the 660 nm laser, but there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups at 1, 3, and 6 months. Throughout the trial period, the 660 nm and 980 nm diode lasers were more effective than the ACP-CPP agent in lowering DH. 660 nm diode laser, 980 nm diode laser, and ACP-CPP agent showed positive prospective as effective desensitizers when utilized as a clinical procedure.
办公室中用于立即缓解牙本质过敏症(DH)的方法长期以来一直是一个研究领域。本研究比较了660纳米二极管激光、980纳米二极管激光和无定形磷酸钙 - 酪蛋白磷酸肽(ACP - CPP)制剂治疗DH的疗效。总共选择了39例患者,这些患者在至少一个象限中至少有三颗过敏牙齿,并随机分为三组;A组、B组和C组患者分别接受660纳米二极管激光、980纳米二极管激光和ACP - CPP制剂治疗。所有过敏牙齿均受到触觉、热和空气刺激,并在基线、30分钟、1周、1个月、3个月和6个月时用数字评分量表(NRS)评估治疗前和治疗后的过敏评分。使用Shapiro - Wilk检验来确定数据的一致性。使用卡方()显著性检验来比较比例。对于组间比较,使用Kruskal - Wallis检验和Mann - Whitney检验。在30分钟和1周时,980纳米激光比660纳米激光更有效,但在1、3和6个月时两组之间无统计学显著差异。在整个试验期间,660纳米和980纳米二极管激光在降低DH方面比ACP - CPP制剂更有效。当作为临床程序使用时,660纳米二极管激光、980纳米二极管激光和ACP - CPP制剂作为有效的脱敏剂显示出积极的前景。