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

Abstract

ObjectivesIn 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. MethodsA 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. ResultsBased 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). ConclusionThe present results showed that 980-nm diode laser alone was more effective than the other 2 intervention methods for 1 month. Trial registrationThe study was registered in the Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials (IRCT20120901010703N5).