Carlos Miguel Marto1,2,3,4, Anabela Baptista Paula1,2,3, Tiago Nunes1, Miguel Pimenta1, Ana Margarida Abrantes2,3,5, Ana Salomé Pires2,3,5, Mafalda Laranjo2,3,5, Ana Coelho1,2,3, Helena Donato6, Maria Filomena Botelho2,3,5, Manuel Marques Ferreira2,3,7, Eunice Carrilho1,2,3. 1. Institute of Integrated Clinical Practice, Faculty of Medicine, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal. 2. Institute for Clinical and Biomedical Research (iCBR), Area of Environment, Genetics and Oncobiology (CIMAGO), Faculty of Medicine, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal. 3. CNC.IBILI, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal. 4. Experimental Pathology Institute, Faculty of Medicine, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal. 5. Biophysics Institute, Faculty of Medicine, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal. 6. Documentation Department, Coimbra Hospital University Centre, Coimbra, Portugal. 7. Institute of Endodontics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the treatments used to treat dentin hypersensitivity (DH), based on its efficacy and effect duration. METHODS: Medline/PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE and ClinicalTrials were searched for articles published between 1 January 2008 and 14 November 2018, in English, Portuguese or Spanish, reporting clinical trials, completed and with results. This systematic review protocol was registered in PROSPERO, number CRD42019121986. RESULTS: Seventy-four randomised clinical trials were included in the systematic review, reporting patients from 16 to 65 years old, with a clinical diagnosis of DH, that evaluate the efficacy of a desensitising product, compared to pre-treatment, used the evaporative method stimulation and the visual analogue scale. These studies evaluated 5366 patients and at least 9167 teeth. Seven follow-up periods were considered corresponding to an immediate, medium or long-time effect. Sixty-six studies were included in the quantitative synthesis. Glutaraldehyde with HEMA, glass ionomer cements and Laser present significant immediate (until 7 days) DH reduction. Medium-term (until 1 month) reduction was observed in stannous fluoride, glutaraldehyde with HEMA, hydroxyapatite, glass ionomer cements and Laser groups. Finally, long-term significant reduction was seen at potassium nitrate, arginine, glutaraldehyde with HEMA, hydroxyapatite, adhesive systems, glass ionomer cements and LASER. CONCLUSIONS: All active ingredients show efficacy in DH reduction in different follow-up times. Only in-office treatments are effective in immediate DH reduction, maintaining its efficacy over time. For long-time effects, at-home treatments can also be used. More standardised evaluation protocols should be implemented to increase the robustly of the results.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the treatments used to treat dentin hypersensitivity (DH), based on its efficacy and effect duration. METHODS: Medline/PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE and ClinicalTrials were searched for articles published between 1 January 2008 and 14 November 2018, in English, Portuguese or Spanish, reporting clinical trials, completed and with results. This systematic review protocol was registered in PROSPERO, number CRD42019121986. RESULTS: Seventy-four randomised clinical trials were included in the systematic review, reporting patients from 16 to 65 years old, with a clinical diagnosis of DH, that evaluate the efficacy of a desensitising product, compared to pre-treatment, used the evaporative method stimulation and the visual analogue scale. These studies evaluated 5366 patients and at least 9167 teeth. Seven follow-up periods were considered corresponding to an immediate, medium or long-time effect. Sixty-six studies were included in the quantitative synthesis. Glutaraldehyde with HEMA, glass ionomer cements and Laser present significant immediate (until 7 days) DH reduction. Medium-term (until 1 month) reduction was observed in stannous fluoride, glutaraldehyde with HEMA, hydroxyapatite, glass ionomer cements and Laser groups. Finally, long-term significant reduction was seen at potassium nitrate, arginine, glutaraldehyde with HEMA, hydroxyapatite, adhesive systems, glass ionomer cements and LASER. CONCLUSIONS: All active ingredients show efficacy in DH reduction in different follow-up times. Only in-office treatments are effective in immediate DH reduction, maintaining its efficacy over time. For long-time effects, at-home treatments can also be used. More standardised evaluation protocols should be implemented to increase the robustly of the results.
Authors: Riccardo Monterubbianesi; Scilla Sparabombe; Vincenzo Tosco; Fabia Profili; Marco Mascitti; Andrell Hosein; Angelo Putignano; Giovanna Orsini Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-12-01 Impact factor: 3.390