4.4 Article

Treating cervical dentin hypersensitivity with fluoride varnish - A randomized clinica study

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN DENTAL ASSOCIATION
Volume 137, Issue 7, Pages 1013-1020

Publisher

AMER DENTAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2006.0324

Keywords

dentin hypersensitivity; fluoride varnish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. This subject-blind randomized clinical trial tested the efficacy of a new 5 percent sodium fluoride varnish (AllSolutions Fluoride Varnish, Dentsply Professional, York Pa.) for treatment of cervical dentin hypersensitivity. The authors also compared the test varnish with a control fluoride varnish (Duraphat, Colgate Oral Pharmaceuticals, New York City). Methods. The study involved application of the test-or control varnish.. to 19 subjects (59 teeth) with tooth sensitivity. The authors applied each product once to each tooth, following manufacturers' instructions. The used a visual analog scale (VAS) to assess subjects' responses to compressed air and ice stimuli at six weeks before baseline, at baseline and at two, eight and 24 weeks after treatment. Results. Mean VAS scores for teeth receiving the test varnish dropped,., from 34.9 (air) and 68.0 (ice) at baseline to 26.3 (air) and 54.7 (ice) at two weeks after treatment. Mean scores at 24 weeks were 20.6 (air) and 34.8 (ice), representing statistically significant differences from baseline values. For the control varnish,mean VAS scores dropped from 36.9 (air) and 64.2 (ice) at baseline to 32.9 (air) and 47.2 (ice) at two weeks, and to 20.8 (air) and 40.3 (ice) at 24 weeks. The authors analyzed the data or statistical significance, accounting for clustering of teeth within subjects. Conclusion and Clinical Implications. The test varnish was effective in reducing cervical dentin hypersensitivity. However, the efficacy was not significantly different from that of the control varnish.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available