Desensitizing Efficacy of Nano-Carbonate Apatite Dentifrice and Er,Cr:YSGG Laser: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Occluding Efficiency of Different Desensitizing Agents and Er,Cr:YSGG Laser on Dentin Tubules

PURPOSE

This study aimed to evaluate the effects of two desensitizers and the Er,Cr:YSGG laser on human dentin tubules, applied alone or in combination.

METHODS

Ninety-six dentin specimens were obtained from extracted third molars and divided into six groups: Group 1: no-treatment (Control); Group 2: nano-hydroxyapatite desensitizer (NhapD); Group 3: NhapD+Er,Cr:YSGG laser (L); Group 4: Er,Cr:YSGG laser (L); Group 5: glutaraldehyde desensitizer (GD); and Group 6: GD+L, respectively. All specimens were evaluated using scanning electron microscopy. The diameter and the number of open dentin tubules, the tubules' occluding ratio, and the mineral coverage area were measured via the Image J software at 2000× magnification. Atomic force microscopy was used to determine the blocking mechanism of desensitizing treatments and the surface morphology of dentin specimens. One-way ANOVA and Tukey tests were used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

The number of open tubules and the mean diameter of tubules for all treatment groups showed statistically significant differences from the control group The NhapD+L group had a significantly lower number of open tubules than the L and GD groups. The NhapD+L and L groups significantly had higher occluding ratios than the other groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study showed that the Er,Cr:YSGG laser alone was effective in terms of tubule occlusion and also contributed to increasing the occluding ratio of nano-hydroxyapatite. It may be recommended to use the Er,Cr:YSGG laser with nano-hydroxyapatite desensitizers to achieve effective tubule occlusion.

Improving Oral Health with Fluoride-Free Calcium-Phosphate-Based Biomimetic Toothpastes: An Update of the Clinical Evidence

As the demand for clinically effective fluoride-free oral care products for consumers increases, it is important to document which types of toothpastes have been shown in clinical studies to be effective in improving oral health. In this review, we included different indications, i.e., caries prevention, improving periodontal health, reducing dentin hypersensitivity, protecting against dental erosion, and safely improving tooth whitening in defining what constitutes improvement in oral health. While there are several professional and consumer fluoride-containing formulations fortified with calcium-phosphate-based ingredients, this review focuses on fluoride-free toothpastes containing biomimetic calcium-phosphate-based molecules as the primary active ingredients. Several databases were searched, and only clinical trials in human subjects were included; in vitro and animal studies were excluded. There were 62 oral health clinical trials on biomimetic hydroxyapatite (HAP), 57 on casein phosphopeptide-amorphous calcium phosphate (CPP-ACP), 26 on calcium sodium phosphosilicate (CSPS, or so called Bioglass), and 2 on β-tricalcium phosphate (β-TCP). HAP formulations were tested the most in clinical trials for benefits in preventing caries, dentin hypersensitivity, improving periodontal health, and tooth whitening. Based on the current clinical evidence to date, fluoride-free HAP toothpaste formulations are the most versatile of the calcium phosphate active ingredients in toothpastes for improving oral health.

Effect of Various Lasers With or Without Systemp.desensitizer on Dentine Tubules: An In Vitro Scanning Electron Microscopy Analysis

Objective: The current study was carried out to evaluate the effects of laser and Systemp.desensitizer therapy. Further, scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was used to determine the effects of individual or combined desensitizers on human dentinal tubules. Background: The most common clinical condition that makes people uncomfortable is dentin hypersensitivity (DH). Both lasers and drugs that reduce sensitivity have been used to treat DH. Materials and methods: A total of 100 dentinal samples were taken from newly extracted third molars (affected) and divided into 10 groups (A to J), that is, control (A); Systemp.desensitizer (B); diode laser (980 nm) (C); Nd:YAG laser (D); Er:YAG laser (E); Er,Cr:YSGG laser (F); Systemp.desensitizer + diode laser (G); Systemp.desensitizer + Nd:YAG laser (H); Systemp.desensitizer + Er:YAG laser (I); and Systemp.desensitizer + Er,Cr:YSGG laser (J). SEM was used to evaluate the dentinal specimens in each group (longitudinal and transverse portions), and then images of each sample were captured (20 images/sample). In addition, the number of open dentinal tubules was counted and then the occlusion depth in dentinal tubules was measured. Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis tests were employed to analyze the obtained data. Results: All treatment procedures and protocols were effective in blocking dentinal tubules (p < 0.05). Compared with the other groups, dentinal tubules in the laser and laser combination therapy groups were significantly obstructed (p < 0.05). Diode and Nd:YAG lasers with or without Systemp.desensitizer showed significantly more tubule occlusion and greater sealing depth than Er:YAG and Er,Cr:YSGG lasers with or without Systemp.desensitizer (p < 0.05). Conclusions: In summary, lasers alone or in combination can play a significant role in occluding the dentinal tubules. However, combining the diode or Nd:YAG laser with Systemp.desensitizers is a more effective treatment strategy and may have immediate and long-lasting effects.

Clinical Evidence of Biomimetic Hydroxyapatite in Oral Care Products for Reducing Dentin Hypersensitivity: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Dentin hypersensitivity (DH) is a very common dental problem that can have a negative impact on the quality of life and can lead to invasive dental procedures. Prevention of DH and control of symptoms are highly desirable. Hydroxyapatite (HAP) has been shown in vitro to block dentinal tubules and in vivo to be a safe and effective additive in oral care products that reduce DH clinically. This study's aim was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the current evidence that HAP-containing oral care products reduce DH. Databases were searched, and only clinical trials in humans were included; studies conducted in vitro or on animals were not included. Publications in a foreign language were translated and included. We found 44 published clinical trials appropriate for systematic analysis. More than half of the trials had high-quality GRADE scores. HAP significantly reduced dentin hypersensitivity compared to placebo (39.5%; CI 95% [48.93; 30.06]), compared to fluoride (23%; CI 95% [34.18; 11.82]), and with a non-significant tendency compared to other desensitizing agents (10.2%; CI 95% [21.76; -19.26]). In conclusion, the meta-analysis showed that HAP added to oral care products is a more effective agent than fluoride in controlling dentin hypersensitivity and may be superior to other desensitizers.

Efficacy of GLUMA for the Treatment of Dentin Hypersensitivity Compared to Lasers: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

Dentin hypersensitivity (DH) is characterized by a short, sharp pain in response to a thermal or tactile stimulus. The application of desensitizing agents such as GLUMA and laser is a non-invasive and safe approach to decrease sensitivity. The evidence for the efficacy of GLUMA desensitizer compared to laser desensitization in patients with DH was evaluated for 6 months.

DESIGN

In March 2022, an electronic search of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases was conducted. Articles published in English that compared GLUMA and laser in the treatment of DH with a follow-up of 6 months or more were included. Randomized, non-randomized controlled trials, and clinical trials were included. Risk of bias assessment tools developed by the Cochrane collaboration ROB 2 and ROBINS-I were used to assess the quality of studies. The GRADE assessment method was used to assess the certainty of evidence.

RESULTS

About 36 studies were identified in the search results. After applying the predefined eligibility criteria, eight studies with 205 participants and 894 sites were included in this review. Of the eight studies, four were judged to be at high risk of bias, three had some concerns, and one had a serious risk of bias. The certainty of the evidence was graded as low.

CONCLUSION

Based on limited evidence, GLUMA and laser appear to be equally effective in providing relief from DH. GLUMA showed an immediate effect and provided pain relief. Over the course of a week, laser showed long-term stable results. GLUMA is effective in providing immediate relief.

Laser therapy for dentinal hypersensitivity

BACKGROUND

Dentinal hypersensitivity is characterized by short, sharp pain from exposed dentine that occurs in response to external stimuli such as cold, heat, osmotic, tactile or chemicals, and cannot be explained by any other form of dental defect or pathology. Laser therapy has become a commonly used intervention and might be effective for dentinal hypersensitivity.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of in-office employed lasers versus placebo laser, placebo agents or no treatment for relieving pain of dentinal hypersensitivity.

SEARCH METHODS

Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 20 October 2020), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2020, Issue 9), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 20 October 2020), Embase Ovid (1980 to 20 October 2020), CINAHL EBSCO (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature; 1937 to 20 October 2020), and LILACS BIREME Virtual Health Library (Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database; from 1982 to 20 October 2020). Conference proceedings were searched via the ISI Web of Science and ZETOC, and OpenGrey was searched for grey literature. The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which in-office lasers were compared to placebo or no treatment on patients aged above 12 years with tooth hypersensitivity.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently and in duplicate screened the search results, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. Disagreement was resolved by discussion. For continuous outcomes, we used mean differences (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). We conducted meta-analyses only with studies of similar comparisons reporting the same outcome measures. We assessed the overall certainty of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 23 studies with 936 participants and 2296 teeth. We assessed five studies at overall low risk of bias, 13 at unclear, and five at high risk of bias. 17 studies contributed data to the meta-analyses. We divided the studies into six subgroups based on the type of laser and the primary outcome measure. We assessed the change in intensity of pain using quantitative pain scale (visual analogue scale (VAS) of 0 to 10 (no pain to worst possible pain)) when tested through air blast and tactile stimuli in three categories of short (0 to 24 hours), medium (more than 24 hours to 2 months), and long term (more than 2 months). Results demonstrated that compared to placebo or no treatment the application of all types of lasers combined may reduce pain intensity when tested through air blast stimuli at short term (MD -2.24, 95% CI -3.55 to -0.93; P = 0.0008; 13 studies, 978 teeth; low-certainty evidence), medium term (MD -2.46, 95% CI -3.57 to -1.35; P < 0.0001; 11 studies, 1007 teeth; very low-certainty evidence), and long term (MD -2.60, 95% CI -4.47 to -0.73; P = 0.006; 5 studies, 564 teeth; very low-certainty evidence). Similarly, compared to placebo or no treatment the application of all types of lasers combined may reduce pain intensity when tested through tactile stimuli at short term (MD -0.67, 95% CI -1.31 to -0.03; P = 0.04; 8 studies, 506 teeth; low-certainty evidence) and medium term (MD -1.73, 95% CI -3.17 to -0.30; P = 0.02; 9 studies, 591 teeth; very low-certainty evidence). However, there was insufficient evidence of a difference in pain intensity for all types of lasers when tested through tactile stimuli in the long term (MD -3.52, 95% CI -10.37 to 3.33; P = 0.31; 2 studies, 184 teeth; very low-certainty evidence). Most included studies assessed adverse events and reported that no obvious adverse events were observed during the trials. No studies investigated the impact of laser treatment on participants' quality of life.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Limited and uncertain evidence from meta-analyses suggests that the application of laser overall may improve pain intensity when tested through air blast or tactile stimuli at short, medium, or long term when compared to placebo/no treatment. Overall, laser therapy appears to be safe. Future studies including well-designed double-blinded RCTs are necessary to further investigate the clinical efficacy of lasers as well as their cost-effectiveness.

Efficacy of nano-carbonate apatite dentifrice in relief from dentine hypersensitivity following non-surgical periodontal therapy: a randomized controlled trial

Background

Dentine hypersensitivity (DH) could occur or intensify after non-surgical periodontal therapy because of the exposure of dentine tubules, but currently no gold standard exists to treat DH. It has been demonstrated that nano-sized particles presented potential for dentine tubules blocking and remineralization. This randomized controlled trial aimed to investigate the efficacy of dentifrice containing nano-carbonate apatite (n-CAP) in reducing dentine hypersensitivity (DH) after non-surgical periodontal therapy.

Methods

48 periodontitis patients with DH were included in this clinical trial. After non-surgical periodontal therapy, patients included were randomized to test and control group and the respective dentifrices were applied at chairside, after which they were instructed to brush teeth with the allocated dentifrices twice a day at home. Periodontal parameters were recorded at baseline and the last follow-up. DH was measured by air-blast test and recorded by visual analogue scale (VAS) and Schiff sensitivity scale at baseline, after polishing (0 week) and 2/4/6 weeks.

Results

45 participants completed the follow-up. Periodontal parameters were improved and comparable between groups. Significant reduction in DH was observed in both groups at all time-points compared to baseline in terms of VAS and Schiff score. The test group achieved significantly greater relief from hypersensitivity compared with the control group after 4-week at-home use (for change of VAS, test group: 2.27 ± 2.47 versus control group: 1.68 ± 2.24, p = 0.036; for change of Schiff, test group: 0.94 ± 0.92 versus control group: 0.61 ± 0.83, p < 0.001). The 6-week results showed borderline significance between groups in terms of change of Schiff (p = 0.027) and no significance in terms of change of VAS (p = 0.256).

Conclusions

Home-use of n-CAP based dentifrice had some benefit on alleviation of DH following non-surgical periodontal therapy after 4 weeks compared to the control product.

Trial registration

Chinese Clinical Trials Registry (No. ChiCTR-IPR-17011678, http://www.chictr.org.cn/, registered 16 June, 2017).

Laser Effects on the Prevention and Treatment of Dentinal Hypersensitivity: A Systematic Review

Introduction: Dentinal hypersensitivity (DH) is an acute intensive tooth pain which can lead to dental annoyances during eating and drinking. Stimulating exposed dentinal tubules by either kind of thermal, tactile, chemical and/or osmotic stimuli is believed to be the cause of this pain. It is hypothesized that dentinal tubules' orifice occlusion (DOO) can help relieve such dental irritations. Thus, this systematic review was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of laser application as a prevention and treatment modality on DH reduction. Methods: Electronic databases (MEDLINE, SCOPUS) were searched among randomized clinical trials from January 2007 to December 2016. The extraction of data and quality assessments were carried out by different independent observers. Results: A total of 499 items were found of which3 9 relevant articles were extracted. The profound findings proved lasers' effectiveness as a treatment of DH. Although some of the researches reported no significant difference between laser and other desensitizing agents, most of the studies suggested that better results (both rapid and long-lasting) were obtained in combined modalities. Furthermore, the preventive role of this new technology has been emphasized as well. Nd-YAG (neodymium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet) and diode lasers reduce DH after bleaching. Lasers can also protect cervical restorations from DH due to tubular occlusion. Moreover, it is suggested to apply lasers in relief of DH following scaling and root planning. Nevertheless, a few researchers dispute its beneficence as a result of placebo effect. Conclusion: The results obtained from several studies in the present review revealed that the application of lasers is effective not only in terms of treatment of DH, but also in the prevention of this intensive tooth pain. Among various types of lasers, the application of Nd:YAG laser has shown the best results in DH treatment.

Surface roughness and bacterial adhesion on root dentin treated with diode laser and conventional desensitizing agents

The treatments for dentin hypersensitivity (DH) may change the surface roughness of the root dentin, which can lead to biofilm accumulation, increasing the risk of root caries. The aim was to compare the surface roughness of root dentin after different treatments of DH and the biofilm formation on those surfaces. After initial surface roughness (Sa) assessment, 50 bovine root fragments received the following treatments (n = 10): G 1-no treatment; G2-5% sodium fluoride varnish; G3-professional application of a desensitizing dentifrice; G4-toothbrushing with a desensitizing dentifrice; and G5-diode laser application (908 nm; 1.5 W, 20 s). The Sa was reevaluated after treatments. Afterward, all samples were incubated in a suspension of Streptococcus mutans at 37 °C for 24 h. The colony-forming units (CFU) were counted using a stereoscope, and the results were expressed in CFU/mL. The one-way ANOVA and the Tukey's tests compared the roughness data and the results obtained on the bacterial adhesion test (α = 5%). G2 (2.3 ± 1.67%) showed similar Sa variation than G1 (0.25 ± 0.41%) and G5 (5.69 ± 0.99%), but different from group G3 (9.05 ± 2.39%). Group 4 showed the highest Sa variation (30.02 ± 3.83%; p < 0.05). Bacterial adhesion was higher in G4 (2208 ± 211.9), suggesting that bacterial growth is greater on rougher surfaces. The diode laser and the conventional treatments for DH may change the surface roughness of the root dentin, but only brushing with desensitizing dentifrice induced a higher bacteria accumulation on root dentin surface.