Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
IO
N
ABSTRACT
CON
Dr. Ritter is an associate professor, Department of Operative Dentistry, The University of North Carolina
at Chapel Hill, School of Dentistry, 441 Brauer Hall, CB#7450, Chapel Hill, N.C. 27599-7450, e-mail
rittera@dentistry.unc.edu. Address reprint requests to Dr. Ritter.
At the time this study was conducted, Dr. Dias was a graduate student, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Department of Operative Dentistry Graduate Program. He now is a dental research
manager, Department of Clinical Research, Dentsply Caulk, Milford, Del.
At the time this study was conducted, Dr. Miguez was a graduate student, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Department of Operative Dentistry Graduate Program. She now is a graduate student, Curriculum of Oral Biology, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, School of Dentistry.
Dr. Caplan is an associate professor, Department of Dental Ecology, The University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill, School of Dentistry.
Dr. Swift is a professor and chair, Department of Operative Dentistry, The University of North Carolina
at Chapel Hill, School of Dentistry.
July 2006
1013
R E S E A R C H
BOX
1014
R E S E A R C H
July 2006
1015
R E S E A R C H
TABLE 1
Characteristics of subjects.
VARIABLE
Sex (No.)
Male
Female
Mean (SD) Age (Years)
Mean (SD) No. of Study Teeth
per Subject
ALLSOLUTIONS
VARNISH*
DURAPHAT
VARNISH
P VALUE
0
10
1
8
.292
35.6 (12.4)
47.0 (6.4)
.024
2.9 (0.9)
3.3 (0.7)
.255
TABLE 2
Characteristics of teeth.
VARIABLE
ALLSOLUTIONS
VARNISH*
(n = 29)
DURAPHAT
VARNISH
(n = 30)
P VALUE
dpaired Student
t test statistics to
compare differences in mean VAS
scores from baseline scores within
each treatment
group;
dMantelHaenszel test
statistics to compare differences in
proportions of categorical variables
across treatment
groups.
RESULTS
R E S E A R C H
TABLE 3
Eight
24
LEVEL OF PERCEIVED
IMPROVEMENT
P VALUE
ALLSOLUTIONS*
(n = 10)
DURAPHAT
(n = 9)
Major
Minor
None
1
7
2
0
8
1
.958
Major
Minor
None
0
7
3
1
7
1
.193
Major
Minor
None
0
9
1
2
7
0
.083
TABLE 4
Differences in visual analog scale (VAS) scores from baseline for teeth
in both treatment groups.
STIMULUS
TIME AFTER
BASELINE (WEEKS)
DIFFERENCE IN
MEAN (SEM*) VAS
SCORE FROM
BASELINE:
ALLSOLUTIONS
(n = 29)
P VALUE
DIFFERENCE IN
MEAN (SEM)
VAS SCORE FROM
BASELINE:
DURAPHAT
(n = 30)
P VALUE
Air
Two
Eight
24
-7.7 (4.9)
-11.2 (5.0)
-14.3 (3.7)
.136
.038
.001
-4.0 (7.1)
-10.1 (7.9)
-16.1 (6.8)
.576
.216
.030
Ice
Two
Eight
24
-13.3 (4.4)
-24.6 (8.1)
-33.3 (6.8)
.008
.007
< .001
-17.0 (3.7)
-23.2 (5.1)
-24.0 (9.3)
< .001
< .001
.019
July 2006
1017
R E S E A R C H
TABLE 5
Air
Ice
TIME
MEAN (SEM*)
VAS SCORE
FOR TEETH
RECEIVING
ALLSOLUTIONS
(n = 29)
MEAN (SEM)
VAS SCORE
FOR TEETH
RECEIVING
DURAPHAT
(n = 30)
ALLSOLUTIONS
SCORE MINUS
DURAPHAT
SCORE
P VALUE
27.2 (6.1)
30.3 (5.7)
-3.2
.710
Baseline
34.9 (7.4)
36.9 (5.5)
-2.0
.830
26.3 (7.4)
32.9 (7.1)
-6.6
.525
Eight weeks
after baseline
23.9 (8.4)
26.8 (7.7)
-2.9
.788
24 weeks after
baseline
20.6 (7.1)
20.8 (4.3)
-0.2
.982
54.4 (8.5)
58.2 (9.4)
-3.8
.
770
Baseline
68.0 (7.3)
64.2 (7.1)
3.8
.711
54.7 (7.1)
47.2 (4.9)
7.5
.396
Eight weeks
after baseline
43.5 (5.7)
41 (7.8)
2.5
.800
24 weeks after
baseline
34.8 (5.7)
40.3 (9.2)
-5.5
.618
R E S E A R C H
July 2006
1019
R E S E A R C H
The results of this study show that the new fluoride varnish effectively reduced cervical dentin
hypersensitivity. However, we found no statistically significant differences between the desensitizing efficacy of this varnish and that of the control varnish.
Dr. Swift is a member of the Dentsply Corporate Education Advisory
Board, a voluntary position.
The authors thank Ginger Cole for her assistance with this study.
1. Holland GR, Narhi MN, Addy A, Gangarosa L, Orchardson R.
Guidelines for the design and conduct of clinical trials on dentine
hypersensitivity. J Clin Periodontol 1997;24:808-13.
2. Johnson G, Brannstrom M. The sensitivity of dentin: changes in
relation to conditions of exposed tubule apertures. Acta Odontol Scand
1974;32:29-38.
3. Narhi MV. Dentin sensitivity: a review. J Biol Buccale 1985;13:
75-96.
4. Cox CF. Etiology and treatment of root hypersensitivity. Am J
Dent 1994;7:266-70.
5. Gysi A. An attempt to explain the sensitiveness of dentine. Br J
Dent Res 1900;43:865-8.
6. Brnnstrm M. Sensitivity of dentin. Oral Surg 1966;21:517-26.
7. Narhi M, Haegerstrom G. Intradental nerve activity induced by
reduced pressure applied to exposed dentin in the cat. Acta Physiol
Scand 1983;119:381-6.
8. Brnnstrm M. The transmission and control of dentinal pain. In:
Grossman LI, ed. Mechanism and control of pain. New York: Masson
Publishing; 1979:15-35.
9. Brnnstrm M, Astrom A. The hydrodynamics of dentin: its possible relationship to dentinal pain. Int Dent J 1972;22:219-27.
10. Abel I. Study of hypersensitive teeth and a new therapeutic aid.
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1958;11:491-5.
1020