Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of Pulp Sensitivity Testing Results Using a New Pulp Testing Device versus Some Commonly Used Methods: A Crossover Study

Abstract

IntroductionThe efficacy and safety of a single novel electronic pulp sensitivity tester with a transilluminator (PSTT) capable of providing 4 different tests was compared with gold standard (GS) pulp testing methods. MethodsFour hundred eighty teeth, including 3 from each quadrant and their contralateral and opposing teeth, were randomly assessed using the PSTT or GS methods. Seven days later, the same teeth were assessed using the method not used earlier so that all teeth were evaluated using both methods. Sixty previously root canal–treated teeth, serving as negative controls, were assessed identically to the experimental groups. Results were analyzed using IBM SPSS software (IBM Corp, Armonk, NY) (P < .05). ResultsA higher percentage of teeth responded to cold and electricity using GS methods compared with the PSTT (99.4 vs 93.1 and 99.6 vs 97.3, respectively). A lower percentage of teeth responded to heat using the GS method compared with the PSTT (50.0 vs 68.1). Chi-square tests determined differences in the proportion of sensitivity to temperature, and electric testing methods were statistically significant (P < .001 and P = .004, respectively). No difference in the proportion of sensitivity was observed for transillumination. The Wilcoxon signed rank test determined significantly shorter cold testing times using the GS method (P = .024). Shorter testing times were observed using the PSTT for heat (P < .001), electric pulp testing (P = .048), and transillumination (P = .001). The overall PSTT testing time was significantly shorter than the GS testing time (P = .03). Tissue injury was not observed. ConclusionsThe PSTT efficiently and safely provided heat and transillumination for pulpal diagnosis. Improvements are needed to enhance the cold and electric stimulus efficacy.