VM Roriz, Mll Santana, VL Boaventura, ED Zanotto, O. Peitl, DR Dias
{"title":"生物硅酸盐玻璃陶瓷和氟化物清漆治疗牙本质过敏症的疗效--随机对照临床试验。","authors":"VM Roriz, Mll Santana, VL Boaventura, ED Zanotto, O. Peitl, DR Dias","doi":"10.2341/23-077-C","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVE\nThe objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of Biosilicate and Duraphat in the treatment of dentin hypersensitivity (DH).\n\n\nMETHODS AND MATERIALS\nThis clinical trial was conducted with young adults presenting DH. A visual analogue scale (VAS) was used to assess the level of pain, using volatile and tactile tests. Forty participants presenting two teeth with DH were included, and these teeth were divided into two groups according to the treatment: Biosilicate or Duraphat. Each product was randomly applied on one tooth per participant once a week for 4 weeks and evaluated every 15 days for 60 days after the last application.\n\n\nRESULTS\nThe mean and standard deviation (SD) of VAS values for the initial volatile sensitivity evaluation were 6.18 (1.99) and 6.08 (1.98) for the Biosilicate and Duraphat groups, respectively, and at the fourth week 0.48 (1.5) and 0.83 (1.58). After 60 days, the volatile sensitivity showed the following values: 0.63 (1.19) for Biosilicate and 1.03 (1.07) for Duraphat. The intragroup comparison showed a significant reduction of mean VAS values for DH-related pain assessed by volatile testing for both groups (p<0.001), and the assessment at the 60-day follow-up showed mean values statistically similar to those obtained at the end of treatment. Initial tactile sensitivity observed was 1.48 (2.39) for the Biosilicate and 1.4 (2.2) for the Duraphat group and at the 60-day follow-up 0.23 (0.73) and 0.15 (0.36), respectively, with significant statistical difference (p<0.002). When the reduction in tactile and volatile sensitivities between both groups was compared, no statistically significant difference was observed.\n\n\nCONCLUSION\nThis study indicated that both products were able to promote an important reduction in dentin hypersensitivity with similar results within a 60-day follow-up.","PeriodicalId":19502,"journal":{"name":"Operative dentistry","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Efficacy of Biosilicate Glass-ceramic and Fluoride Varnish in the Treatment of Dentin Hypersensitivity-A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.\",\"authors\":\"VM Roriz, Mll Santana, VL Boaventura, ED Zanotto, O. Peitl, DR Dias\",\"doi\":\"10.2341/23-077-C\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"OBJECTIVE\\nThe objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of Biosilicate and Duraphat in the treatment of dentin hypersensitivity (DH).\\n\\n\\nMETHODS AND MATERIALS\\nThis clinical trial was conducted with young adults presenting DH. A visual analogue scale (VAS) was used to assess the level of pain, using volatile and tactile tests. Forty participants presenting two teeth with DH were included, and these teeth were divided into two groups according to the treatment: Biosilicate or Duraphat. Each product was randomly applied on one tooth per participant once a week for 4 weeks and evaluated every 15 days for 60 days after the last application.\\n\\n\\nRESULTS\\nThe mean and standard deviation (SD) of VAS values for the initial volatile sensitivity evaluation were 6.18 (1.99) and 6.08 (1.98) for the Biosilicate and Duraphat groups, respectively, and at the fourth week 0.48 (1.5) and 0.83 (1.58). After 60 days, the volatile sensitivity showed the following values: 0.63 (1.19) for Biosilicate and 1.03 (1.07) for Duraphat. The intragroup comparison showed a significant reduction of mean VAS values for DH-related pain assessed by volatile testing for both groups (p<0.001), and the assessment at the 60-day follow-up showed mean values statistically similar to those obtained at the end of treatment. Initial tactile sensitivity observed was 1.48 (2.39) for the Biosilicate and 1.4 (2.2) for the Duraphat group and at the 60-day follow-up 0.23 (0.73) and 0.15 (0.36), respectively, with significant statistical difference (p<0.002). When the reduction in tactile and volatile sensitivities between both groups was compared, no statistically significant difference was observed.\\n\\n\\nCONCLUSION\\nThis study indicated that both products were able to promote an important reduction in dentin hypersensitivity with similar results within a 60-day follow-up.\",\"PeriodicalId\":19502,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Operative dentistry\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Operative dentistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2341/23-077-C\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Operative dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2341/23-077-C","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Efficacy of Biosilicate Glass-ceramic and Fluoride Varnish in the Treatment of Dentin Hypersensitivity-A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of Biosilicate and Duraphat in the treatment of dentin hypersensitivity (DH).
METHODS AND MATERIALS
This clinical trial was conducted with young adults presenting DH. A visual analogue scale (VAS) was used to assess the level of pain, using volatile and tactile tests. Forty participants presenting two teeth with DH were included, and these teeth were divided into two groups according to the treatment: Biosilicate or Duraphat. Each product was randomly applied on one tooth per participant once a week for 4 weeks and evaluated every 15 days for 60 days after the last application.
RESULTS
The mean and standard deviation (SD) of VAS values for the initial volatile sensitivity evaluation were 6.18 (1.99) and 6.08 (1.98) for the Biosilicate and Duraphat groups, respectively, and at the fourth week 0.48 (1.5) and 0.83 (1.58). After 60 days, the volatile sensitivity showed the following values: 0.63 (1.19) for Biosilicate and 1.03 (1.07) for Duraphat. The intragroup comparison showed a significant reduction of mean VAS values for DH-related pain assessed by volatile testing for both groups (p<0.001), and the assessment at the 60-day follow-up showed mean values statistically similar to those obtained at the end of treatment. Initial tactile sensitivity observed was 1.48 (2.39) for the Biosilicate and 1.4 (2.2) for the Duraphat group and at the 60-day follow-up 0.23 (0.73) and 0.15 (0.36), respectively, with significant statistical difference (p<0.002). When the reduction in tactile and volatile sensitivities between both groups was compared, no statistically significant difference was observed.
CONCLUSION
This study indicated that both products were able to promote an important reduction in dentin hypersensitivity with similar results within a 60-day follow-up.
期刊介绍:
Operative Dentistry is a refereed, international journal published bi-monthly and distributed to subscribers in over 50 countries. In 2012, we printed 84 articles (672 pages). Papers were submitted by authors from 45 countries, in the categories of Clinical Research, Laboratory Research, Clinical Techniques/Case Presentations and Invited Papers, as well as Editorials and Abstracts.
One of the strong points of our journal is that our current publication time for accepted manuscripts is 4 to 6 months from the date of submission. Clinical Techniques/Case Presentations have a very quick turnaround time, which allows for very rapid publication of clinical based concepts. We also provide color for those papers that would benefit from its use.
The journal does not accept any advertising but you will find postings for faculty positions. Additionally, the journal also does not rent, sell or otherwise allow its subscriber list to be used by any other entity