Search

Aims: To develop and test labeled magnitude (LM) scales that are sensitive to variations in pain associated with dentin hypersensitivity (DH)., Methods: Qualitative methods were used first to obtain words that describe the pain of DH. Magnitude estimation was then used to determine the position of these descriptive terms by relative magnitude along four vertical LM scales. To assess their DH, patients used the four LM scales following dentin stimulation with 4°C and 25°C water. The LM scales were then compared to visual analog scale (VAS) ratings by using eight pain scenarios of varying severity. Finally, participants with DH completed the four horizontal LM scales and VAS after dentin stimulation with 4°C and 25°C water. Within-subject t tests were used for comparisons between scales and water temperatures, and between-subject t tests were used for comparisons between participants with and without DH., Results: Participants showed comparable differentiation between 4°C and 25°C water on VAS and three of the LM scale measures. Responses on the fourth LM scale showed better differentiation than VAS between the two water temperatures. Participants used a greater portion of the LM scales than VAS when rating low-level pain scenarios., Conclusion: LM scales were shown to provide some advantages compared to standard VAS when used to evaluate DH-associated pain. These advantages may be generalized to other low-level pain conditions.

Background: The prevalence of dentin hypersensitivity is uncertain, yet appropriate diagnosis and treatment of dentin hypersensitivity require accurate knowledge regarding its prevalence. The authors conducted a study to estimate the prevalence of dentin hypersensitivity in general dental practices and to investigate associated risk factors., Methods: The authors conducted a cross-sectional survey of 787 adult patients from 37 general dental practices within Northwest Practice-based Research Collaborative in Evidence-based DENTistry (PRECEDENT). Dentin hypersensitivity was diagnosed by means of participants' responses to a question regarding pain in their teeth and gingivae, and practitioner-investigators conducted a clinical examination to rule out alternative causes of pain. Participants recorded their pain level on a visual analog scale and the Seattle Scales in response to a one-second air blast. The authors used generalized estimating equation log-linear models to estimate the prevalence and the prevalence ratios., Results: The prevalence of dentin hypersensitivity was 12.3 percent; patients with hypersensitivity had, on average, 3.5 hypersensitive teeth. The prevalence of dentin hypersensitivity was higher among 18- to 44-year olds than among participants 65 years or older; it also was higher in women than in men, in participants with gingival recession than in those without gingival recession and in participants who underwent at-home tooth whitening than in those who did not. Hypersensitivity was not associated with obvious occlusal trauma, noncarious cervical lesions or aggressive toothbrushing habits., Conclusions: One in eight participants from general practices had dentin hypersensitivity, which was a chronic condition causing intermittent, low-level pain. Patients with hypersensitivity were more likely to be younger, to be female and to have a high prevalence of gingival recession and at-home tooth whitening., Practical Implications: Given dentin hypersensitivity's prevalence, clinicians should diagnose it only after investigating all other possible sources of pain.

Treatment of dentin hypersensitivity with oxalates is common, but oxalate efficacy remains unclear. Our objective was to systematically review clinical trials reporting an oxalate treatment compared with no treatment or placebo with a dentin hypersensitivity outcome. Risk-of-bias assessment and data extraction were performed independently by two reviewers. Standardized mean differences (SMD) were estimated by random-effects meta-analysis. Of 677 unique citations, 12 studies with high risk-of-bias were included. The summary SMD for 3% monohydrogen-monopotassium oxalate (n = 8 studies) was -0.71 [95% Confidence Interval: -1.48, 0.06]. Other treatments, including 30% dipotassium oxalate (n = 1), 30% dipotassium oxalate plus 3% monohydrogen monopotassium oxalate (n = 3), 6% monohydrogen monopotassium oxalate (n = 1), 6.8% ferric oxalate (n = 1), and oxalate-containing resin (n = 1), also were not statistically significantly different from placebo treatments. With the possible exception of 3% monohydrogen monopotassium oxalate, available evidence currently does not support the recommendation of dentin hypersensitivity treatment with oxalates.

Background: Methods used by dental practitioners to diagnose and treat dentin hypersensitivity are not well documented. The authors conducted a survey of dentists in the Northwest Practice-based REsearch Collaborative in Evidence-based DENTistry (PRECEDENT) to ascertain the treatment methods they used. Methods. Via an Internet survey, the authors collected data regarding methods used for diagnosis and treatment of dentin hypersensitivity from 209 Northwest PRECEDENT dentists., Results: The PRECEDENT dentists indicated that they most often used fluoride varnishes and gels, advice regarding toothbrushing and diet, bonding agents, restorative materials and glutaraldehyde/2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA) to treat dentin hypersensitivity. They reported that the most successful treatments were fluorides, glutaraldehyde/HEMA, bonding agents, potassium nitrates and restorative treatments; they considered observation, advice regarding toothbrushing and diet and laser therapy to be the least successful. Dentists listed fluorides, calcium phosphates, glutaraldehyde/HEMA and bonding agents as the treatments most desirable for inclusion in a future randomized clinical trial of dental hypersensitivity treatments., Conclusions: Dentists rely on patients to assess the severity of dentin hypersensitivity. Modalities for the diagnosis and treatment of hypersensitivity are diverse. Methods used to diagnose and treat dentin hypersensitivity in practice are challenging to justify., Clinical Implications: Practitioners should be aware of the diversity of methods available for diagnosing and treating dentin hypersensitivity as they manage the care of their patients with this condition.