OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the effect of photobiomodulation (PBM) combined with 8% strontium acetate (SA8%) in the treatment of dentin hypersensitivity (DH) in non-carious lesions and analyzed the risk factors with the patient's quality of life. METHODS: Eighty teeth with DH were randomly allocated into four treatment groups (n = 20): G1, PBM imitation + toothpaste with no active ingredient; G2, PBM imitation + toothpaste with SA8%; G3, PBM + toothpaste without the active ingredient; and G4, PBM + toothpaste with SA8%. Participants were provided with a questionnaire on the experience of dentin hypersensitivity (QEDH) to assess the impact of desensitizing treatment on health-related quality of life (HRQL). Friedman and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used for intra- and intergroup comparisons, and Wilcoxon and Mann-Whitney tests were used to analyze HRQL. All analyses used significance levels of 5%. RESULTS: Intergroup comparisons revealed a significant difference (p < 0.05); G4 had the best response in terms of HD reduction in G4 compared to the other groups on the 7th day of assessment (T3). Only G4 showed a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) in the reduction of EDH for intragroup analysis. CONCLUSION: The combination of therapies was more effective in reducing DH than the isolated use of these strategies. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The combination of therapies is effective in the treatment of DH.
OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the effect of photobiomodulation (PBM) combined with 8% strontium acetate (SA8%) in the treatment of dentin hypersensitivity (DH) in non-carious lesions and analyzed the risk factors with the patient's quality of life. METHODS: Eighty teeth with DH were randomly allocated into four treatment groups (n = 20): G1, PBM imitation + toothpaste with no active ingredient; G2, PBM imitation + toothpaste with SA8%; G3, PBM + toothpaste without the active ingredient; and G4, PBM + toothpaste with SA8%. Participants were provided with a questionnaire on the experience of dentin hypersensitivity (QEDH) to assess the impact of desensitizing treatment on health-related quality of life (HRQL). Friedman and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used for intra- and intergroup comparisons, and Wilcoxon and Mann-Whitney tests were used to analyze HRQL. All analyses used significance levels of 5%. RESULTS: Intergroup comparisons revealed a significant difference (p < 0.05); G4 had the best response in terms of HD reduction in G4 compared to the other groups on the 7th day of assessment (T3). Only G4 showed a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) in the reduction of EDH for intragroup analysis. CONCLUSION: The combination of therapies was more effective in reducing DH than the isolated use of these strategies. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The combination of therapies is effective in the treatment of DH.
Authors: Sarah R Baker; Barry J Gibson; Farzana Sufi; Ashley Barlow; Peter G Robinson Journal: J Clin Periodontol Date: 2013-11-06 Impact factor: 8.728
Authors: Christina Grünberg; Florian Bauer; Alexander Crispin; Michael Jakob; Reinhard Hickel; Miriam E Draenert Journal: Am J Dent Date: 2017-08 Impact factor: 1.522
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: Olga V Boiko; Sarah R Baker; Barry J Gibson; David Locker; Farzana Sufi; Ashley P S Barlow; Peter G Robinson Journal: J Clin Periodontol Date: 2010-09-22 Impact factor: 8.728