Evaluation of Two Pain Assessment Methods (Tactile and Air blast) for Comparison the Effectiveness of Nd:YAG Laser Therapy and Non-Laser Therapy on Dentin Hyper Sensitivity Treatment: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Zahra Baghani, Malihe Karrabi
{"title":"Evaluation of Two Pain Assessment Methods (Tactile and Air blast) for Comparison the Effectiveness of Nd:YAG Laser Therapy and Non-Laser Therapy on Dentin Hyper Sensitivity Treatment: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.","authors":"Zahra Baghani,&nbsp;Malihe Karrabi","doi":"10.30476/dentjods.2022.93159.1698","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Statement of the problem: </strong>Dentin hypersensitivity (DH) is a common irritating condition. A precise sensitive test for its assessment can greatly aid in appropriate treatment planning.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This meta-analysis aims to compare the air blast and tactile tests for assessment of the efficacy Nd:YAG laser therapy versus non-laser treatments for DH in short-term and long-term follow-ups.</p><p><strong>Materials and method: </strong>For this review, an electronic search of the literature was carried out in three databases by two researchers for English articles published until March 10, 2021. Pooling of the data extracted from the selected articles was performed according to the PRISMA statement by the random-effect model. The mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of pain score before the treatment onset and during the follow-up period according to the visual analog scale (VAS) were calculated. The level of heterogeneity was assessed by the I<sub>2</sub> test, and a funnel plot was drawn to assess the publication bias of the reviewed studies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 152 articles primarily retrieved, 9 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) using the air blast test and 4 RCTs using the tactile test were subjected to quantitative synthesis. In the short-term follow-up and immediately after treatment, the air blast test showed superiority of laser therapy compared with non-laser treatments (SMD: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.05-1.04, <i>p</i>= 0.03). However, this difference was not significant according to the tactile test (SMD: 0.48. 95% CI: 0.01-0.96, <i>p</i>= 0.06). In the long-term follow-up, the difference between laser therapy and non-laser modalities was not significant according to both air blast (SMD= -0.38, 95% CI: -1.43-0.67, <i>p</i>= 0.48) and tactile (SMD=0.0, 95% CI: -0.38-0.38, <i>p</i>= 0.99) tests.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Comparison of laser therapy and non-laser modalities in the short-term reveal-ed higher sensitivity of the air blast test due to its mechanism of action compared with the tactile test. Further studies are required to interpret the results in the long-term follow-up.</p>","PeriodicalId":73702,"journal":{"name":"Journal of dentistry (Shiraz, Iran)","volume":"24 2","pages":"168-181"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10300146/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of dentistry (Shiraz, Iran)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30476/dentjods.2022.93159.1698","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Statement of the problem: Dentin hypersensitivity (DH) is a common irritating condition. A precise sensitive test for its assessment can greatly aid in appropriate treatment planning.

Purpose: This meta-analysis aims to compare the air blast and tactile tests for assessment of the efficacy Nd:YAG laser therapy versus non-laser treatments for DH in short-term and long-term follow-ups.

Materials and method: For this review, an electronic search of the literature was carried out in three databases by two researchers for English articles published until March 10, 2021. Pooling of the data extracted from the selected articles was performed according to the PRISMA statement by the random-effect model. The mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of pain score before the treatment onset and during the follow-up period according to the visual analog scale (VAS) were calculated. The level of heterogeneity was assessed by the I2 test, and a funnel plot was drawn to assess the publication bias of the reviewed studies.

Results: Of 152 articles primarily retrieved, 9 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) using the air blast test and 4 RCTs using the tactile test were subjected to quantitative synthesis. In the short-term follow-up and immediately after treatment, the air blast test showed superiority of laser therapy compared with non-laser treatments (SMD: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.05-1.04, p= 0.03). However, this difference was not significant according to the tactile test (SMD: 0.48. 95% CI: 0.01-0.96, p= 0.06). In the long-term follow-up, the difference between laser therapy and non-laser modalities was not significant according to both air blast (SMD= -0.38, 95% CI: -1.43-0.67, p= 0.48) and tactile (SMD=0.0, 95% CI: -0.38-0.38, p= 0.99) tests.

Conclusion: Comparison of laser therapy and non-laser modalities in the short-term reveal-ed higher sensitivity of the air blast test due to its mechanism of action compared with the tactile test. Further studies are required to interpret the results in the long-term follow-up.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

两种疼痛评估方法(触觉和空气爆破)对Nd:YAG激光治疗和非激光治疗牙本质超敏感疗效的比较:系统综述和meta分析。
问题陈述:牙本质过敏症(DH)是一种常见的刺激性疾病。对其进行精确灵敏的评估可以极大地帮助制定适当的治疗计划。目的:本荟萃分析的目的是在短期和长期随访中比较空气爆炸和触觉试验评估Nd:YAG激光治疗与非激光治疗对DH的疗效。材料和方法:在本综述中,两位研究人员在三个数据库中对发表于2021年3月10日之前的英文文章进行了文献电子检索。根据随机效应模型的PRISMA语句对所选文章中提取的数据进行汇总。根据视觉模拟评分(VAS)计算治疗前和随访期间疼痛评分的平均差值(MD)和95%置信区间(CI)。采用I2检验评估异质性水平,并绘制漏斗图评估所综述研究的发表偏倚。结果:在主要检索的152篇文献中,9篇采用空气爆炸试验的随机临床试验(rct)和4篇采用触觉试验的随机临床试验(rct)进行定量综合。在短期随访和治疗后立即,空气爆破试验显示激光治疗优于非激光治疗(SMD: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.05 ~ 1.04, p= 0.03)。然而,根据触觉测试,这种差异并不显著(SMD: 0.48)。95% CI: 0.01 ~ 0.96, p= 0.06)。在长期随访中,根据空气爆炸(SMD= -0.38, 95% CI: -1.43-0.67, p= 0.48)和触觉(SMD=0.0, 95% CI: -0.38-0.38, p= 0.99)测试,激光治疗与非激光治疗方式的差异无统计学意义。结论:激光治疗与非激光治疗在短期内的比较表明,空气爆炸试验的作用机制比触觉试验具有更高的敏感性。需要进一步的研究来解释长期随访的结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信