BACKGROUND:Dentin hypersensitivity (DH) is a painful, exaggerated response to normal stimuli, such as cold, sweetness, and brushing. The aim of the present controlled, randomized, double-masked, non-inferiority clinical trial is to evaluate the effectiveness of cyanoacrylate in the treatment of DH when compared to the application of low-intensity laser. METHODS: The study includes 434 sensitive teeth from 62 patients. A total of 216 teeth were treated with laser and 218 withcyanoacrylate. A numeric rating scale was used to record the parameters of pain related to the stimuli at baseline and after the treatment at intervals of 24 hours and 30, 90, and 180 days. RESULTS: Both groups had significant reductions in DH. However, there was no significant difference between the two groups ≤6 months. Intragroup analysis showed that the effect of cyanoacrylate obtained at 24 hours remained for 90 days in response to air-jet test and 30 days for cold-spray test. There was a statistically significant difference between all other intragroup comparisons at the time intervals (P <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: It was concluded that cyanoacrylate is as effective as low-intensity laser in reducing DH. In addition, it is a more accessible and low-cost procedure and can be safely used in the treatment of DH.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Dentin hypersensitivity (DH) is a painful, exaggerated response to normal stimuli, such as cold, sweetness, and brushing. The aim of the present controlled, randomized, double-masked, non-inferiority clinical trial is to evaluate the effectiveness of cyanoacrylate in the treatment of DH when compared to the application of low-intensity laser. METHODS: The study includes 434 sensitive teeth from 62 patients. A total of 216 teeth were treated with laser and 218 with cyanoacrylate. A numeric rating scale was used to record the parameters of pain related to the stimuli at baseline and after the treatment at intervals of 24 hours and 30, 90, and 180 days. RESULTS: Both groups had significant reductions in DH. However, there was no significant difference between the two groups ≤6 months. Intragroup analysis showed that the effect of cyanoacrylate obtained at 24 hours remained for 90 days in response to air-jet test and 30 days for cold-spray test. There was a statistically significant difference between all other intragroup comparisons at the time intervals (P <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: It was concluded that cyanoacrylate is as effective as low-intensity laser in reducing DH. In addition, it is a more accessible and low-cost procedure and can be safely used in the treatment of DH.