Gowri Sivaramakrishnan1, Kannan Sridharan2. 1. Department of Oral Health, College of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Fiji National University, Brown Street, Suva, Fiji. gowri.sivaramakrishnan@gmail.com. 2. Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Arabian Gulf University, Manama, Bahrain.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Reports indicate Gluma and Duraphat are commonly used in-office agents to treat hypersensitive teeth. Considering this, the aim of this paper is to compare Gluma and Duraphat using a randomized controlled trial, meta-analysis collating evidences from previous studies and trial sequential analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Thirty-eight participants were randomized. Hypersensitivity and visual analog scale (VAS) scores were recorded at baseline, 5 min and 7 days. Oral health-related quality of life (OHIP) questionnaire was administered at baseline and 7 days. Statistical analysis was performed to identify significant differences between the variables. For the meta-analysis, electronic data bases were searched and eligible data was extracted and analysed using RevMan 5.0. Trial sequential analysis was performed using O'Brien-Fleming boundary approach for the primary outcome. RESULTS: Both agents caused significant reduction in hypersensitivity and VAS score at 5 min and 7 days in the randomized trial with no superiority. The quality of life significantly improved in patients treated with both the agents. Four studies including the present trial in meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis indicated that Gluma produced significant reduction in VAS scores at 7 days. CONCLUSION: Gluma produces significant reduction in hypersensitivity at 7 days post treatment compared with Duraphat. There is definite lack of evidence on the long-term effect of these agents. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This paper provides strong evidence on the use of Gluma for hypersensitive teeth. This also is a way forward to future research on long-term effects, adverse effects and cost-effectiveness studies.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: Reports indicate Gluma and Duraphat are commonly used in-office agents to treat hypersensitive teeth. Considering this, the aim of this paper is to compare Gluma and Duraphat using a randomized controlled trial, meta-analysis collating evidences from previous studies and trial sequential analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-eight participants were randomized. Hypersensitivity and visual analog scale (VAS) scores were recorded at baseline, 5 min and 7 days. Oral health-related quality of life (OHIP) questionnaire was administered at baseline and 7 days. Statistical analysis was performed to identify significant differences between the variables. For the meta-analysis, electronic data bases were searched and eligible data was extracted and analysed using RevMan 5.0. Trial sequential analysis was performed using O'Brien-Fleming boundary approach for the primary outcome. RESULTS: Both agents caused significant reduction in hypersensitivity and VAS score at 5 min and 7 days in the randomized trial with no superiority. The quality of life significantly improved in patients treated with both the agents. Four studies including the present trial in meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis indicated that Gluma produced significant reduction in VAS scores at 7 days. CONCLUSION: Gluma produces significant reduction in hypersensitivity at 7 days post treatment compared with Duraphat. There is definite lack of evidence on the long-term effect of these agents. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This paper provides strong evidence on the use of Gluma for hypersensitive teeth. This also is a way forward to future research on long-term effects, adverse effects and cost-effectiveness studies.
Entities:
Keywords:
Pain; Pain rating scale; Quality of life; Sensitive teeth
Authors: David Moher; Sally Hopewell; Kenneth F Schulz; Victor Montori; Peter C Gøtzsche; P J Devereaux; Diana Elbourne; Matthias Egger; Douglas G Altman Journal: Int J Surg Date: 2011-10-12 Impact factor: 6.071
Authors: Joana Cunha-Cruz; John C Wataha; Lingmei Zhou; Walter Manning; Michael Trantow; Meishan M Bettendorf; Lisa J Heaton; Joel Berg Journal: J Am Dent Assoc Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 3.634