Premium
Evaluation of the efficacy of dentin hypersensitivity treatments—A systematic review and follow‐up analysis
Author(s) -
Marto Carlos Miguel,
Baptista Paula Anabela,
Nunes Tiago,
Pimenta Miguel,
Abrantes Ana Margarida,
Pires Ana Salomé,
Laranjo Mafalda,
Coelho Ana,
Donato Helena,
Botelho Maria Filomena,
Marques Ferreira Manuel,
Carrilho Eunice
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
journal of oral rehabilitation
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.991
H-Index - 93
eISSN - 1365-2842
pISSN - 0305-182X
DOI - 10.1111/joor.12842
Subject(s) - dentin hypersensitivity , medicine , glass ionomer cement , dentistry , cochrane library , clinical trial , glutaraldehyde , placebo , clinical efficacy , dentin , visual analogue scale , meta analysis , surgery , pathology , alternative medicine
Objectives To compare the treatments used to treat dentin hypersensitivity (DH), based on its efficacy and effect duration. Methods Medline/PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE and ClinicalTrials were searched for articles published between 1 January 2008 and 14 November 2018, in English, Portuguese or Spanish, reporting clinical trials, completed and with results. This systematic review protocol was registered in PROSPERO, number CRD42019121986. Results Seventy‐four randomised clinical trials were included in the systematic review, reporting patients from 16 to 65 years old, with a clinical diagnosis of DH, that evaluate the efficacy of a desensitising product, compared to pre‐treatment, used the evaporative method stimulation and the visual analogue scale. These studies evaluated 5366 patients and at least 9167 teeth. Seven follow‐up periods were considered corresponding to an immediate, medium or long‐time effect. Sixty‐six studies were included in the quantitative synthesis. Glutaraldehyde with HEMA, glass ionomer cements and Laser present significant immediate (until 7 days) DH reduction. Medium‐term (until 1 month) reduction was observed in stannous fluoride, glutaraldehyde with HEMA, hydroxyapatite, glass ionomer cements and Laser groups. Finally, long‐term significant reduction was seen at potassium nitrate, arginine, glutaraldehyde with HEMA, hydroxyapatite, adhesive systems, glass ionomer cements and LASER. Conclusions All active ingredients show efficacy in DH reduction in different follow‐up times. Only in‐office treatments are effective in immediate DH reduction, maintaining its efficacy over time. For long‐time effects, at‐home treatments can also be used. More standardised evaluation protocols should be implemented to increase the robustly of the results.