Efficacy of an anhydrous stannous fluoride toothpaste for relief of dentine hypersensitivity: A randomized clinical study

Comparison of retention of cast crown luted with glass ionomer cement in presence of two different types of desensitizer agent on extracted teeth-an in vitro study

Background

Dentin hypersensitivity is common problem between procedure of vital tooth preparation and cementation procedure of final prosthesis. So, use of desensitizing agents may be helpful to minimize the errors.

Aim

To Compare retention of cast crown luted with glass ionomer cement in presence of two different types of desensitizer agent on extracted teeth.

Material

Desensitizing agents used are bioactive Glass and GLUMA, Glass Ionomer Cement has been used as luting agent. Other required items are crown cutting bur, airotor handpiece, spatula, glass Cement carrier, microtip brush, universal testing machine.

Methodology

In this study total number of 60 premolars with good coronal anatomy, which are extracted for orthodontic purposes, were collected from Department of oral and maxillofacial surgery, Institute of dental Sciences. Then they were mounted individually in die stone block. Tooth preparation for the metal prosthesis of maxillary and mandibular premolars was carried out following the standard principles of tooth preparation use milling surveyor and they are grouped randomly into Group A- Luting cement (Control group), group B- Luting cement + Kulzer Gluma Desensitizer, group C- Luting cement + Bioactive glass. After fabrication of metal coping, tooth conditioning has been carried out then cementation was done using GIC. Retention of coping was checked using universal testing machine.

Result

A comparison was made for the mean stress value within three groups. GIC + Bioactive had the highest mean stress (6.52 ± 1.81) followed by Control group (3.88 ± 2.37). GIC ± Gluma had the least mean stress of 2.59 ± 1.19.

Conclusion

Bioactive glass + GIC exhibited higher retentive value as compared to prosthesis luted only with GIC and GIC + Gluma. So clinically it can be inferred that for vital tooth preparation bioactive glass can be used as desensitizing agent for the intermediate period till the permanent crown is luted.

Comparative efficacy of self-administered dentifrices for the management of dentine hypersensitivity - A systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review with network meta-analysis synthesises available randomised controlled trials evidence concerning efficacy of self-administered dentifrices for management of dentine hypersensitivity (DH) pain.

STUDY SELECTION

Following systematic review registration (CRD42019154064), three data bases (MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL) were searched to December 2022 for parallel randomised controlled trials conducted in adults diagnosed with DH, using at least two recognised stimuli, assessing the short-term efficacy of home-use dentifrice treatment in reducing pain. Thirty-two studies and 4,638 participants were included. A Network meta-analysis (NMA) approach was used to compare relative effectiveness between interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

Twice daily application of self-applied dentifrice containing formulations of stannous, potassium +/- stannous, or arginine can be recommended for the reduction of dentine hypersensitivity pain. There is a need for standardised methodology guideline development to improve the conduct, analysis and reporting of DH clinical studies.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This is the first comprehensive NMA to be performed, that follows guidelines for conduct of DH trials to determine the efficacy of self-applied dentifrices for the management of dentine hypersensitivity. Indirect comparisons can be made between formulations that have not been compared to one another in randomised controlled trials.

Efficacy of an anhydrous stannous fluoride toothpaste for relief of dentine hypersensitivity: A randomized clinical study

Aim

To compare efficacy of an anhydrous 0.454% w/w stannous fluoride/sodium fluoride toothpaste (Test) versus a sodium monofluorophosphate toothpaste (Negative control) and a stannous chloride/sodium fluoride toothpaste (Positive control) for dentine hypersensitivity relief after 8 weeks’ twice‐daily use.

Materials and Methods

In this randomized, examiner‐blind, stratified, parallel study, primary and secondary efficacy variables were mean changes in Schiff score (evaporative [air] sensitivity) and tactile threshold (Yeaple probe), respectively, from baseline to Week 8 between Test (n = 62) and Negative control (n = 62). Test and Positive control (n = 61) comparisons were exploratory objectives.

Results

All groups significantly improved from baseline on both dentine hypersensitivity measures (p < .0001). Difference between adjusted mean changes from baseline in Schiff sensitivity scores at Week 8 for Test versus Negative control groups was 0.19 (95% CI 0.002, 0.374), in favour of the Negative control (p = .0476; 12.57% difference). Difference in tactile threshold was −7.20 g (95% CI −16.376, 1.975), and this was not statistically significant (p = .3715; −21.83% difference). Test group showed no significant difference versus Positive control for either measure. Toothpastes were generally well tolerated.

Conclusion

While twice‐daily use of Test toothpaste significantly reduced dentine hypersensitivity from baseline, there was no significant advantage over negative or positive controls. Study registration: Clinicaltrials.gov; NCT03310268.