PURPOSE: To determine the efficacy in reducing dentin hypersensitivity (DHS) of a combined in-office and home-use desensitizing system, each product containing 8% arginine and calcium carbonate (Test), following a dental scaling procedure, compared to the combination of a conventional prophylactic paste and a potassium nitrate dentifrice (Control), in a group of patients with known dentin hypersensitivity. METHODS: An 8-week clinical study, with 50 subjects, was conducted in Piracicaba, São Paulo, Brazil, using a double-blind/two treatment design. Air blast sensitivity assessments were used to compare the efficacy of the two approaches using both the Schiff scale as well as a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). RESULTS: Immediately after prophylaxis, the Test treatment provided significant reduction in DHS when compared to baseline values (VAS = 26.2% and Schiff = 29.1%), while for Control treatment this difference was not statistically significant (VAS = 8.1% and Schiff = 6.6%). The comparison between groups after prophylaxis showed a greater DHS reduction for the Test treatment (P < 0.05). The reductions in DHS after 2, 4 and 8 weeks were significant for both groups, however, when considering Schiff scale, the Test treatment provided greater DHS reduction after 2 weeks (44.5% for Test versus 27.7% for Control) and 4 weeks (55.2% for Test and 40.5% for Control), while after 8 weeks there was no significant difference between groups (71.1% for Test versus 61.1% for Control).
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To determine the efficacy in reducing dentin hypersensitivity (DHS) of a combined in-office and home-use desensitizing system, each product containing 8% arginine and calcium carbonate (Test), following a dental scaling procedure, compared to the combination of a conventional prophylactic paste and a potassium nitrate dentifrice (Control), in a group of patients with known dentin hypersensitivity. METHODS: An 8-week clinical study, with 50 subjects, was conducted in Piracicaba, São Paulo, Brazil, using a double-blind/two treatment design. Air blast sensitivity assessments were used to compare the efficacy of the two approaches using both the Schiff scale as well as a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). RESULTS: Immediately after prophylaxis, the Test treatment provided significant reduction in DHS when compared to baseline values (VAS = 26.2% and Schiff = 29.1%), while for Control treatment this difference was not statistically significant (VAS = 8.1% and Schiff = 6.6%). The comparison between groups after prophylaxis showed a greater DHS reduction for the Test treatment (P < 0.05). The reductions in DHS after 2, 4 and 8 weeks were significant for both groups, however, when considering Schiff scale, the Test treatment provided greater DHS reduction after 2 weeks (44.5% for Test versus 27.7% for Control) and 4 weeks (55.2% for Test and 40.5% for Control), while after 8 weeks there was no significant difference between groups (71.1% for Test versus 61.1% for Control).