» Articles » PMID: 33424170

Comparative Evaluation of Use of a Diode Laser and Electrode Application with and Without Two Dentinal Tubule Occluding Agents in the Management of Dentinal Hypersensitivity - A Clinical Study

Overview
Date 2021 Jan 11
PMID 33424170
Citations 1
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Dentinal hypersensitivity (DH) is common problem in dentistry. Traditional agents along with alternative therapies have been researched. Aim: To study the efficacy of a diode laser (DL) and electrode application with and without hydroxyapatite (HAP) and strontium chloride (SrCl2) powder.

Materials And Methods: 60 Patients with mild cervical abrasion in at least two quadrant with two teeth per quadrant were selected and randomly divided into four groups: (i) Group 1- DL versus DL with HAP (ii) Group 2 - electrode application versus electrode application with HAP (iii) Group 3 - DL versus DL with SrCl2 (iv) Group 4 - electrode application versus electrode application with SrCl2 and were subjected to tactile stimulus and air blast test and scores were recorded on verbal rating scale (VRS) and visual analogues scale (VAS) at different time for 3 months. The data was statistically evaluated by one way ANOVA and paired t test.

Results: In group 1 and 3, DL alone had a short term reduction of hypersensitivity ( = 0.001). Synergistic effect of DL and HAP (group 1) showed a prolonged reduction on both scales ( < 0.001) whereas the additive effect of SrCl2 with DL (group 3) showed statistically significant reduction on both scales at all time (<0.001). In group 2 there is insignificant difference on both scales at all time ( > 0.05) however group 4 showed significant reduction only in VAS score (p>0.05).

Conclusion: DL alone had a short lived effect however with adjunctive sustained results were obtained whereas electrode application was neither beneficial nor did cause any adverse effect.

Citing Articles

A short term comparative evaluation of the efficacy of diode laser with desensitizing toothpastes and mouthwashes in the treatment of dentinal hypersensitivity.

Acharya A, Chandrashekar A, Thakur S J Clin Exp Dent. 2022; 14(3):e229-e234.

PMID: 35317290 PMC: 8916602. DOI: 10.4317/jced.59063.

References
1.
Kishore A, Mehrotra K, Saimbi C . Effectiveness of desensitizing agents. J Endod. 2002; 28(1):34-5. DOI: 10.1097/00004770-200201000-00008. View

2.
KEELE K . The pain chart. Lancet. 1948; 2(6514):6-8. DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(48)91787-5. View

3.
Patil C, Gaikwad R . Comparative evaluation of use of diode laser and electrode with and without two dentinal tubule occluding agents in the management of dentinal hypersensitivity: An experimental study. J Indian Soc Periodontol. 2020; 24(2):150-155. PMC: 7069114. DOI: 10.4103/jisp.jisp_136_19. View

4.
Shetty S, Kohad R, Yeltiwar R . Hydroxyapatite as an in-office agent for tooth hypersensitivity: a clinical and scanning electron microscopic study. J Periodontol. 2010; 81(12):1781-9. DOI: 10.1902/jop.2010.100172. View

5.
Gautham Kumar N, Mehta D . Short-term assessment of the Nd:YAG laser with and without sodium fluoride varnish in the treatment of dentin hypersensitivity--a clinical and scanning electron microscopy study. J Periodontol. 2005; 76(7):1140-7. DOI: 10.1902/jop.2005.76.7.1140. View