PURPOSE:Dentine hypersensitivity is one of the most frequently recorded complaints of dental discomfort. Current evidence implicates patent dentinal tubules in hypersensitive dentine, and it follows that one effective way to reduce dentine sensitivity is to occlude the dentinal tubules. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of two different desensitising agents, Cervitec varnish and Gluma varnish. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two hundred fifty patients self-reporting dentine hypersensitivity completed the paired split mouth randomised, subject-blind study. Each participant had a minimum of two sensitive teeth in at least two different quadrants and displaying a response of ≥3 cm to an evaporative stimulus. The hypersensitivity levels were measured with a tactile stimulus (scratchometer), thermal stimulus (cold water test), and an evaporative stimulus (air blast test) using a visual analogue scale. The teeth were evaluated immediately after treatment, and at 4 and 12 weeks after application of the chlorhexidine-containing varnish Cervitec and the glutaraldehyde-containing varnish, Gluma Desensitizer. RESULTS: Statistical analysis indicated that both the desensitising varnishes were effective in alleviating dentine hypersensitivity at all time intervals compared to baseline. There was a highly statistically significantly greater reduction in dentine hypersensitivity to evaporative stimulus, cold stimulus, and tactile stimulus after application of Cervitec than after Gluma Desensitizer (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Both the varnishes have a therapeutic potential to alleviate dentine hypersensitivity at all time intervals compared to baseline. However, Cervitec varnish is more efficacious in reducing dentine hypersensitivity than Gluma varnish at both 4 weeks and 12 weeks post-treatment.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: Dentine hypersensitivity is one of the most frequently recorded complaints of dental discomfort. Current evidence implicates patent dentinal tubules in hypersensitive dentine, and it follows that one effective way to reduce dentine sensitivity is to occlude the dentinal tubules. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of two different desensitising agents, Cervitec varnish and Gluma varnish. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two hundred fifty patients self-reporting dentine hypersensitivity completed the paired split mouth randomised, subject-blind study. Each participant had a minimum of two sensitive teeth in at least two different quadrants and displaying a response of ≥3 cm to an evaporative stimulus. The hypersensitivity levels were measured with a tactile stimulus (scratchometer), thermal stimulus (cold water test), and an evaporative stimulus (air blast test) using a visual analogue scale. The teeth were evaluated immediately after treatment, and at 4 and 12 weeks after application of the chlorhexidine-containing varnish Cervitec and the glutaraldehyde-containing varnish, Gluma Desensitizer. RESULTS: Statistical analysis indicated that both the desensitising varnishes were effective in alleviating dentine hypersensitivity at all time intervals compared to baseline. There was a highly statistically significantly greater reduction in dentine hypersensitivity to evaporative stimulus, cold stimulus, and tactile stimulus after application of Cervitec than after Gluma Desensitizer (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Both the varnishes have a therapeutic potential to alleviate dentine hypersensitivity at all time intervals compared to baseline. However, Cervitec varnish is more efficacious in reducing dentine hypersensitivity than Gluma varnish at both 4 weeks and 12 weeks post-treatment.