Evaluation of the Effects of 660-nm and 810-nm Low-Level Diode Lasers on the Treatment of Dentin Hypersensitivity

The effect of laser therapy for the treatment of dentin hypersensitivity on surface roughness and bacterial adhesion

The aim of the study was to measure the degree of dentine surface roughness caused by five distinct lasers used to treat dentine hypersensitivity, as well as to evaluate the subsequent bacterial colonization on these irradiated surfaces. Sixty human maxillary premolar teeth without caries or restoration which were extracted for periodontal reasons were used in this study. Five different types of lasers were applied to the root dentin surface. Tested samples were divided into six groups of 10 samples each; control, diode (810 nm), diode (980 nm), Nd: YAG, Er: YAG, and Er, Cr: YSGG laser groups. The arithmetic mean of the surface roughness values (Ra) and the average roughness over a measurement area (Sa) were measured pre- and post-application using any of the laser types. Swab samples were then collected from the dentin surface. Following a 24-hour incubation period at 37 °C, the colony forming units were counted using a stereoscope. The results demonstrated a statistically significant difference in the surface roughness values pre- and post-application (Ra and Sa, respectively) in the Er, Cr: YSGG laser group (p = 0.037,p = 0.007). No significant difference was observed in the other groups (p > 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in the number of bacterial colonies observed between the test and control groups. Diode and Nd: YAG lasers showed either a decrease or no change in surface roughness; however, the hard tissue lasers (Er: YAG, Er, Cr: YSGG) showed an increase. The Er: YAG and Nd: YAG laser groups exhibited decreased bacterial adhesion compared to the other groups.

Ozone and Laser Effects on Dentin Hypersensitivity Treatment: A Randomized Clinical Study

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the clinical efficacy of diode laser and ozone gas in the treatment of dentin hypersensitivity (DHS).

METHODS

One hundred thirty-two teeth from 44 patients with moderate DHS were randomized into 3 groups according to a split-mouth design. In the diode laser group, the operator irradiated the superficial dentin exposed with an 808-nm wavelength and incremental power from 0.2 to 0.6 W with a 20-second interval. In the ozone gas group, the operator applied a high dose of ozone (32 g/m3) for 30 seconds using a silicon cup. In the placebo group, no therapy was applied. The dentin sensitivity level was evaluated upon enrollment (T0), immediately after treatment (T1), 3 months post-treatment (T2), and 6 months post-treatment (T3) with a cold air blast challenge and tactile stimuli. The pain severity was quantified according to the visual analogue scale. The Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to scrutinize potential statistical disparities among the treatments. Statistical significance was predetermined at P < .05.

RESULTS

A significant decrease of DHS was observed in the ozone gas group and the `diode laser group immediately after treatment and after 3 and 6 months of the therapy. After 6 months from the therapy, the sensitivity values in the teeth treated with ozone gas remained statistically lower than those treated with diode lasers (P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

A laser diode and ozone gas are both efficient as dentin sensitivity treatment. Ozone maintains an invariable effectiveness after 6 months.

Efficacy of 810 nm and 650 nm Diode Laser Alone and in Combination With Sodium Fluoride Gel in Treating Dentin Hypersensitivity: A Split-Mouth Randomized Clinical Study

Introduction Dentin hypersensitivity has been defined as a short, sharp pain caused by exposing naked dentin to external stimuli such as evaporation, heat, cold, osmotic liquids, and tactile effects. None of the available treatments has been considered the gold standard in treating dentin hypersensitivity. The use of laser has recently become more popular, and it is a promising treatment method in this field. The study aimed to compare the effectiveness of both 810 nm and 650 nm diode lasers in treating dentin hypersensitivity. Materials and methods This study was conducted on six patients who were referred to the Department of Oral Medicine, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Damascus University (4 females and 2 males) with 108 teeth suffering from generalized dentin hypersensitivity and were randomly divided into two groups. Group 1 consisted of three patients with 50 teeth treated with an 810 nm diode laser; it was divided by the split-mouth design into two subgroups. The first subgroup was treated by the application of the laser alone toward the target area with 1-watt power, continuous mode, and a total application time of 90 seconds, and the second subgroup was treated by applying sodium fluoride gel for one minute, then the laser was applied with the same settings as the first subgroup. Group 2 consisted of three patients with 58 teeth treated with a 650 nm diode laser; it was divided by the split-mouth design into two subgroups. The first subgroup was treated by the application of the laser alone toward the target area with 200 m watt power, continuous mode, and a total application time of 120 seconds, and the second subgroup was treated by applying sodium fluoride gel for one minute and then applying the laser with the same settings as the first subgroup. The pain was evaluated using a numeric rating scale (NRS) of 100 degrees before and immediately after treatment, and then after three to six and nine months by applying an air stream from a dental chair syringe at a distance of 0.5 cm from the target area. Results This study showed that both types of lasers were effective in treating pain caused by dentinal hypersensitivity. The average values ​​of pain reduction on the NRS showed the superiority of the 810 nm diode laser over the 650 nm after treatment and at all time points of pain assessment. No statistically significant differences were detected between applying laser alone and applying it combined with sodium fluoride gel in pain reduction values. Conclusions The application of an 810 nm diode laser either alone or in combination with sodium fluoride gel in treating dentin hypersensitivity is effective and better than the application of a 650 nm diode laser either alone or in combination with sodium fluoride gel. In addition, applying a 650 nm diode laser either alone or in combination with sodium fluoride gel has slight effectiveness in treating dentine hypersensitivity, and it is believed that a single treatment session with a 650 nm diode laser was not enough to obtain the required pain reduction.

Photobiomodulation therapy and 3% potassium nitrate gel as treatment of cervical dentin hypersensitivity: a randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

This randomized controlled trial aimed to evaluate different protocols for dentin hypersensitivity treatment with low-power lasers and desensitizing agents, and the association between low-power lasers and desensitizing agents.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Fifty-four patients (303 teeth) were randomly allocated to three groups: G1, 3% nitrate potassium gel, UltraEZ (n = 17); G2, photobiomodulation therapy (PBM) with a low-level infrared laser (n = 17), 100 mW, spot size of 0.028 cm2, and dose of 1 J per point; and G3, nitrate potassium + PBM (n = 20). Treatments were applied to the buccal cervical region at intervals of 72 h, and all protocols were performed in three sessions. The patients' response to evaporative stimuli was rated using the visual analog scale (VAS). Re-evaluations were performed immediately after each application and 1 week, 1 month, and 3 months after treatment. A two-way repeated measures test and Tukey's post hoc test were used for multiple comparisons (α = 5%).

RESULTS

There was a reduction in pain levels at the end of treatment in all groups. There were no significant differences in VAS score changes between the groups immediately after treatment and after the third month, compared to the baseline (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Under the limitations of this in vivo study, the proposed three-session protocol was effective in reducing dentin hypersensitivity after 3 months, regardless of the desensitization mechanism used. Conservative and long-term protocols are interesting for the control of pain caused by dentin hypersensitivity.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The increase in cervical dentin hypersensitivity prevalence warrants easy-to-apply and long-lasting desensitizing protocols for pain control.

Evaluation of the effects of 980 and 810-nm high-level diode lasers in treating dentin hypersensitivity: A double-blinded randomized clinical trial

Background

Dentin hypersensitivity is a prevalent problem, manifested as a short sharp pain. Researchers have used different lasers to treat this condition. The present study aimed to evaluate the effect of 980 and 810-nm high-level diode lasers on dentin hypersensitivity to determine proper laser parameters for clinical applications.

Materials and Methods

In this double-blinded randomized clinical trial, seven patients with 60 teeth affected by dentin hypersensitivity were selected for the present double-blind, randomized clinical trial. The patients' teeth were randomly matched and assigned to three groups: Group 1: 980-nm diode laser; Group 2: 810-nm diode laser; and Group 3: Control, which received only the guiding beam. The laser parameters were 1-W power, continuous wave mode, a distance of 1 mm, no contact, a 45° irradiation angle, and a 30-s exposure time using to-and-fro movements. The treatment consisted of two sessions with a 1-week interval. Pain severity was determined with the visual analog scale (VAS) at all the study intervals using a dry ice spray. The data were analyzed with SPSS version 20 using one-way ANOVA, repeated measures ANOVA, and least significant difference tests. Significance level was set at α = 0.05.

Results

The changes in VAS were significant only in the first stage (P = 0.046). The mean VAS scores decreased over time in the 810-nm and 980 laser groups. A comparison of VAS changes relative to the baseline revealed significant changes in VAS scores at all the time intervals with both lasers. The two 810 and 980-nm laser groups did not exhibit any significant differences for 2 months postoperatively (P = 0.098).

Conclusion

The application of 810 and 980-nm diode lasers at 1-W power and an exposure time of 30 s was effective in decreasing pain in patients with dentin hypersensitivity, with no significant difference between these two lasers.

ISP Good Clinical Practice Recommendations for the management of Dentin Hypersensitivity

Dentin hypersensitivity (DH) is a rising concern in clinical dentistry that causes pain and discomfort and negatively affects the quality of life of patients. Indian Society of Periodontology conducted a nationwide survey, involving 3000 dentists in December 2020, which revealed significant knowledge gaps regarding DH, viz., under-diagnosis, incorrect differential diagnosis, and treatment strategies/recommendations for the management of DH patients in daily clinical practice. The current paper has been envisioned and conceptualized to update the practicing Indian dentists regarding the so-called enigma of dentistry "Dentin Hypersensitivity," based on the best available contemporary evidence. An expert panel was constituted comprising 30 subject experts from across the country, which after extensive literature review and group discussions formulated these recommendations. The panel advocated routine screening of all dentate patients for exposed dentin areas and DH to avoid under-diagnosis of the condition and suggested an early preventive management. Consensus guidelines/recommendations for the use of desensitizing agents (DAs) at home, including the use of herbal agents, are also provided within the backdrop of the Indian context. The guidelines recommend that active management of DH shall be accomplished by a combination of at home and in-office therapies, starting with the simplest and cost-effective home use of desensitizing toothpastes. A diagnostic decision tree and a flowchart for application in daily practice are designed to manage the patients suffering from DH or presenting with exposed dentin areas in dentition. Various treatment methods to manage DH have been discussed in the paper, including the insights from previously published treatment guidelines. Further, a novel system of classification of DH patients based on specific case definitions has been developed for the first time. Explicit charts regarding the available treatment options and the chronology of institution of the agent, for the management in different case categories of DH, have been provided for quick reference. The management strategy takes into account a decision algorithm based on hierarchy of complexity of treatment options and intends to improve the quality of life of the patient by long-term maintenance with an innovatively defined triple C's or 3Cs approach.

Parameters Used With Diode Lasers (808-980 nm) in Dentin Hypersensitivity Management: A Systematic Review

Introduction: The present study aimed to describe parameters used with 808- to 980-nm wavelength diode lasers for managing dentin hypersensitivity and analyze their results. Methods: The inclusion criteria were based on randomized controlled clinical trials using diode lasers at an 808-980 nm wavelength range in patients with dentine hypersensitivity with a minimum of 1-month follow-up. An electronic search for articles on Medline, PubMed and Cochrane databases was performed. The risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane collaboration tool. Results: Our electronic search resulted in 130 papers, of which 11 articles met the inclusion criteria. A majority of the studies assessed dentine hypersensitivity using the Visual Analogue Scale, which ranged between 2.3 and 8.8 before treatment and significantly reduced to a mean value of 0.45-3.7 after diode laser application. The power settings ranged between 1.5 mW and 3 W with an emission mode of continuous wave, except for 2 authors who used chopped mode. The energy density varied from 2.5 to 128 J/cm2, and the exposure time was between 10 and 120 seconds. The authors applied a minimum of 1 to 4 treatment sessions with a 2-day to 1-week interval between them. Most of the studies mentioned the tooth surface as the treatment site but without describing the specific irradiation points. Conclusion: Despite the heterogeneity of the analyzed variables, a statistically significant improvement in all laser groups was described. However, they cannot be compared homogenously.

Comparison of the Effectiveness of Combined Diode Laser and GLUMA Bonding Therapy With Combined Diode Laser and 5% Sodium Fluoride Varnish in Patients With Dentin Hypersensitivity

Introduction: Dentin hypersensitivity (DH) is one of the most common complaints of patients referred to a dental office, so this study aimed to compare the effectiveness of combined diode laser and GLUMA bonding therapy with combined diode laser and 5% sodium fluoride varnish in patients with DH. Methods: Sixty patients were divided into three groups (bonding, laser-bonding, laser-varnish), and before the intervention, the amount of DH was measured with the visual analogue scale (VAS) scale. In the bonding group, GLUMA Desensitizer solution was applied and then air-dried. In the bonding-laser group, first bonding was used, and then the affected tooth was irradiated with a diode laser. In the varnish-laser group, 5% sodium fluoride varnish was coated and then the laser was irradiated with the said method. DH was measured immediately after the treatment and then 2, 7 and 30 days after the treatment. Results: Laser-varnish treatment was not different from laser-bonding treatment at all measurement times (P=1). Laser-varnish and bonding treatment were not significantly different up to one week after the intervention, but on the 30th day after the intervention, the difference in pain was significant (P=0.01). There was no significant difference in laser-bonding treatment up to one week after the intervention, but on the 30th day after the intervention, the difference in pain was significant (P=0.003). Conclusion: The combined treatment with GLUMA bonding and the 660 nm diode laser is effective in reducing DH and this is more effective than GLUMA bonding alone in the long term. However, it does not have a significant advantage over the combined varnish-laser method, but it seems that due to its ease of use, it can be a suitable alternative to the varnish-laser method.

Laser therapy for dentinal hypersensitivity

BACKGROUND

Dentinal hypersensitivity is characterized by short, sharp pain from exposed dentine that occurs in response to external stimuli such as cold, heat, osmotic, tactile or chemicals, and cannot be explained by any other form of dental defect or pathology. Laser therapy has become a commonly used intervention and might be effective for dentinal hypersensitivity.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of in-office employed lasers versus placebo laser, placebo agents or no treatment for relieving pain of dentinal hypersensitivity.

SEARCH METHODS

Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 20 October 2020), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2020, Issue 9), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 20 October 2020), Embase Ovid (1980 to 20 October 2020), CINAHL EBSCO (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature; 1937 to 20 October 2020), and LILACS BIREME Virtual Health Library (Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database; from 1982 to 20 October 2020). Conference proceedings were searched via the ISI Web of Science and ZETOC, and OpenGrey was searched for grey literature. The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which in-office lasers were compared to placebo or no treatment on patients aged above 12 years with tooth hypersensitivity.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently and in duplicate screened the search results, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. Disagreement was resolved by discussion. For continuous outcomes, we used mean differences (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). We conducted meta-analyses only with studies of similar comparisons reporting the same outcome measures. We assessed the overall certainty of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 23 studies with 936 participants and 2296 teeth. We assessed five studies at overall low risk of bias, 13 at unclear, and five at high risk of bias. 17 studies contributed data to the meta-analyses. We divided the studies into six subgroups based on the type of laser and the primary outcome measure. We assessed the change in intensity of pain using quantitative pain scale (visual analogue scale (VAS) of 0 to 10 (no pain to worst possible pain)) when tested through air blast and tactile stimuli in three categories of short (0 to 24 hours), medium (more than 24 hours to 2 months), and long term (more than 2 months). Results demonstrated that compared to placebo or no treatment the application of all types of lasers combined may reduce pain intensity when tested through air blast stimuli at short term (MD -2.24, 95% CI -3.55 to -0.93; P = 0.0008; 13 studies, 978 teeth; low-certainty evidence), medium term (MD -2.46, 95% CI -3.57 to -1.35; P < 0.0001; 11 studies, 1007 teeth; very low-certainty evidence), and long term (MD -2.60, 95% CI -4.47 to -0.73; P = 0.006; 5 studies, 564 teeth; very low-certainty evidence). Similarly, compared to placebo or no treatment the application of all types of lasers combined may reduce pain intensity when tested through tactile stimuli at short term (MD -0.67, 95% CI -1.31 to -0.03; P = 0.04; 8 studies, 506 teeth; low-certainty evidence) and medium term (MD -1.73, 95% CI -3.17 to -0.30; P = 0.02; 9 studies, 591 teeth; very low-certainty evidence). However, there was insufficient evidence of a difference in pain intensity for all types of lasers when tested through tactile stimuli in the long term (MD -3.52, 95% CI -10.37 to 3.33; P = 0.31; 2 studies, 184 teeth; very low-certainty evidence). Most included studies assessed adverse events and reported that no obvious adverse events were observed during the trials. No studies investigated the impact of laser treatment on participants' quality of life.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Limited and uncertain evidence from meta-analyses suggests that the application of laser overall may improve pain intensity when tested through air blast or tactile stimuli at short, medium, or long term when compared to placebo/no treatment. Overall, laser therapy appears to be safe. Future studies including well-designed double-blinded RCTs are necessary to further investigate the clinical efficacy of lasers as well as their cost-effectiveness.

Low level laser therapy, Er,Cr:YSGG laser and fluoride varnish for treatment of dentin hypersensitivity after periodontal surgery: A randomized clinical trial

This clinical trial aimed to compare the effects of low-level laser therapy (LLLT), Er,Cr;YSGG laser, and fluoride varnish, as compared to the placebo laser on decreasing dentin hypersensitivity (DH). This randomized, double-blinded clinical trial included 60 jaw quadrants in 24 patients who underwent periodontal surgery. The quadrants were randomly assigned to 4 groups and received treatments as follows. Group 1: LLLT with a combination of red and infrared wavelengths, group 2: Er,Cr:YSGG laser (0.25 W and 0.5 W), group 3: fluoride varnish, and group 4: placebo laser. The sensitivity response to the cold spray was recorded using visual analogue scale (VAS) at baseline, immediately, and 1 week post-treatment. The data were analyzed by repeated measures analysis at the significance level of P<0.05. There was a significant reduction in DH after treatment by low-level lasers, Er,Cr:YSGG laser, or fluoride varnish compared to the baseline data (P<0.05), but the placebo group displayed no significant alteration in DH (P=0.069). At 1 week, the VAS score in the Er,Cr:YSGG laser group was significantly lower than that of the LLLT (P= 0.043) and placebo (P<0.001) groups. Furthermore, the subjects who received fluoride varnish exhibited significantly lower DH compared with the placebo group (P = 0.023). Er,Cr:YSGG laser was the most effective strategy in dealing with DH, as it caused the greatest pain reduction over the study period and showed a significant superiority over LLLT and placebo groups. Alternatively, the application of fluoride varnish could be recommended for attenuating DH following periodontal surgery.