AIM: Dentin hypersensitivity, caused by the exposure and patency of dentinal tubules, can affect patients' quality of life. The aim of this study was to undertake a systematic review and a network meta-analysis, comparing the effectiveness in resolving dentin hypersensitivity among different in-office desensitizing treatments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature search was performed with electronic databases and by hand until December 2011. The included trials were divided into six treatment groups as placebo, physical occlusion, chemical occlusion, nerve desensitization, laser therapy and combined treatments. The treatment effects between groups were estimated with standardized mean differences by using a Bayesian network meta-analysis. RESULTS: Forty studies were included. The standardized mean difference between placebo and physical occlusion was -2.57 [95% credible interval (CI): -4.24 to -0.94]; placebo versus chemical occlusion was -2.33 (95% CI: -3.65 to -1.04); placebo versus nerve desensitization was -1.72 (95% CI: -4.00 to 0.52); placebo versus laser therapy was -2.81 (95% CI: -4.41 to -1.24); placebo versus combined treatment was -3.47 (95% CI: -5.99 to -0.96). The comparisons of the five active treatments showed no significant differences. CONCLUSIONS: The results from network meta-analysis showed that most active treatment options had significantly better treatment outcome than placebo.
AIM: Dentin hypersensitivity, caused by the exposure and patency of dentinal tubules, can affect patients' quality of life. The aim of this study was to undertake a systematic review and a network meta-analysis, comparing the effectiveness in resolving dentin hypersensitivity among different in-office desensitizing treatments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature search was performed with electronic databases and by hand until December 2011. The included trials were divided into six treatment groups as placebo, physical occlusion, chemical occlusion, nerve desensitization, laser therapy and combined treatments. The treatment effects between groups were estimated with standardized mean differences by using a Bayesian network meta-analysis. RESULTS: Forty studies were included. The standardized mean difference between placebo and physical occlusion was -2.57 [95% credible interval (CI): -4.24 to -0.94]; placebo versus chemical occlusion was -2.33 (95% CI: -3.65 to -1.04); placebo versus nerve desensitization was -1.72 (95% CI: -4.00 to 0.52); placebo versus laser therapy was -2.81 (95% CI: -4.41 to -1.24); placebo versus combined treatment was -3.47 (95% CI: -5.99 to -0.96). The comparisons of the five active treatments showed no significant differences. CONCLUSIONS: The results from network meta-analysis showed that most active treatment options had significantly better treatment outcome than placebo.
Authors: Alana Cristina Machado; Ítallo Emídio Lira Viana; Aloisio Melo Farias-Neto; Mariana Minatel Braga; Carlos de Paula Eduardo; Patricia Moreira de Freitas; Ana Cecilia Corrêa Aranha Journal: Lasers Med Sci Date: 2017-12-05 Impact factor: 3.161
Authors: Marta Mazur; Maciej Jedliński; Artnora Ndokaj; Roman Ardan; Joanna Janiszewska-Olszowska; Gianna Maria Nardi; Livia Ottolenghi; Fabrizio Guerra Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2021-05-12 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Klaus W Neuhaus; Jeffery L Milleman; Kimberly R Milleman; Kimberly A Mongiello; Thomas C Simonton; Courtney E Clark; Howard M Proskin; Rainer Seemann Journal: J Clin Periodontol Date: 2013-02-17 Impact factor: 8.728