PURPOSE:Dentin hypersensitivity (DH) is a prevalent painful condition of the teeth, the management of which lies in the obliteration of patent dentinal tubules. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of 5% potassium nitrate (PN), low-level laser therapy (LLLT), and combination of low-level laser therapy and 5% potassium nitrate (LLLT+PN) in patients with fluorotic and non-fluorotic hypersensitive teeth. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Ninety self reportingpatients with DH completed the randomised, double-blind study. Patients were equally divided into fluorosis group (FG), with moderate to moderately severe fluorosis and the non-fluorosis group (NFG) and subdivided into 3 groups to receivePN, LLLT (810 nm, 1 W) alone and LLLT+PN. Each participant had at least one tooth eliciting a response of ≥ 3 on a visual analog scale (VAS) to evaporative, thermal and electric tactile stimulus (digital scratch-o-meter). The teeth were evaluated at baseline, 30 min post treatment, 1 week, 4 weeks and 12 weeks. The magnitude of pressure applied by the scratch-o-meter was also assessed for all three interventions. RESULTS: Statistically, LLLT+PN was more effective in alleviating DH at all time intervals compared to baseline. However, statistically significant results (p ˂ 0.05) were seen with LLLT+PN at 12 weeks in FG. Magnitude of pressure applied showed statistically significant differences with LLLT+PN at 30 min post treatment. CONCLUSION:LLLT+PN alleviated DH at all time intervals, with a greater effect in the fluorotic group. However, LLLT+PN was more efficacious in reducing DH at 12 weeks post treatment in the fluorotic group.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: Dentin hypersensitivity (DH) is a prevalent painful condition of the teeth, the management of which lies in the obliteration of patent dentinal tubules. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of 5% potassium nitrate (PN), low-level laser therapy (LLLT), and combination of low-level laser therapy and 5% potassium nitrate (LLLT+PN) in patients with fluorotic and non-fluorotichypersensitive teeth. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety self reporting patients with DH completed the randomised, double-blind study. Patients were equally divided into fluorosis group (FG), with moderate to moderately severe fluorosis and the non-fluorosis group (NFG) and subdivided into 3 groups to receive PN, LLLT (810 nm, 1 W) alone and LLLT+PN. Each participant had at least one tooth eliciting a response of ≥ 3 on a visual analog scale (VAS) to evaporative, thermal and electric tactile stimulus (digital scratch-o-meter). The teeth were evaluated at baseline, 30 min post treatment, 1 week, 4 weeks and 12 weeks. The magnitude of pressure applied by the scratch-o-meter was also assessed for all three interventions. RESULTS: Statistically, LLLT+PN was more effective in alleviating DH at all time intervals compared to baseline. However, statistically significant results (p ˂ 0.05) were seen with LLLT+PN at 12 weeks in FG. Magnitude of pressure applied showed statistically significant differences with LLLT+PN at 30 min post treatment. CONCLUSION: LLLT+PN alleviated DH at all time intervals, with a greater effect in the fluorotic group. However, LLLT+PN was more efficacious in reducing DH at 12 weeks post treatment in the fluorotic group.