View clinical trials related to Dentin Sensitivity.
Filter by:Subjects will be enrolled into 3 balanced groups each using a different strength toothpaste. Dental hypersensitivity (DHS) will be assessed at study start, midway and study end.
To compare the efficacy of two commercially available in-office desensitizing agents (Fluoraphat Pro and VivaSens®), in the treatment of dentinal hypersensitivity.
The main purpose of the present study was to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of three kinds of commercially available desensitizing agents: Gluma, Sheildforce plus, and Telio CS desensitizers in reducing the pre- and post-cementation sensitivity for full coverage restorations.
The present project will compare the effect of DH reduction using three different dentifrices (Sensodyne Repair and Protect - NOVAMIN technology; Dentalclean Daily Regenerator - REFIX technology; Dentalclean Daily Regenerator - REFIX technology + potassium citrate) in periodontal patients. The evaluation will be in 6 moments: T1 and T2- immediately before and after scaling and root planing (SRP) procedures; T3-after polishing sensitive areas with rubbers cups and the dentifrice determined for each group of patients and T4, 5, 6- After 2, 4 and 8 weeks of SRP. Profissional assessments and patient perception data will be performed.
This study investigated the effects of the association of strontium chloride with photobiomodulation on the dental bleaching process, testing the hypothesis that they may control dental sensitivity post-bleaching teeth.
Here we assessed the clinical effectiveness of Gluma, fluoride varnish, and the Tetric N-Bond one-step self-etch system in alleviating DH instantly and over 1 month, after a single topical application.A randomized, double-blind, clinical trial was conducted on 55 patients (25 males, 30 females; age: 20-49 years). Seventy teeth were randomly assigned to three groups: Gluma (n = 24); fluoride varnish (n = 23); and Tetric N-Bond adhesive (n = 23). Sensitivity to tactile, air blast, and cold stimuli were investigated.. A visual analogue scale was used to assess tactile stimuli, and the Schiff Cold Scale to assess air blast and cold stimuli. DH was evaluated immediately post-treatment, and at the 2-week and 1-month follow-up. Between-group and within-group comparisons were made.
This will be multi-centered, triple blinded, randomized, four parallel treatments assigned study to compare clinical efficacy of commercially available dentifrices with placebo for immediate and sustained relief from Dentin Hypersensitivity after short term use. Condition or disease: Dentin hypersensitivity Intervention/Treatment: Product 1; Fluoro-Calcium-Phospho-silicate based BioMin F Product 2; Pro-Argin formula based Colgate Sensitive Pro-Relief Product 3; Strontium Acetate based Sensodyne Rapid Action Product 4; Sodium Fluoride based Colgate Total
The world lacks a gold standard treatment for treating dentin hypersensitivity. Fluoride varnish is most commonly used as a treatment but it causes temporary discoloration of tooth structure and may cause irritation or burning of gums when it comes in contact with gums. Seventh generation bonding agents are less technique sensitive and are easy to use. The present study aims to find out the better seventh generation bonding agent as a treatment option for sensitivity. A total of 105 patients with dentin hypersensitivity are randomized into three groups. Scaling and root debridement are performed for all the groups. This study compares two seventh generation bonding agents and taking fluoride varnish as control group.
This randomized, placebo-controlled, triple-blind trial aims to evaluate the effect of glutaraldehyde associated or not with 37% phosphoric acid conditioning on dentin hypersensitivity reduction after non-surgical periodontal treatment, and its durability after 15 and 30 days. desensitizing treatment. Additionally, investigate the impact of these treatments on health-related quality of life. The investigators selected patients who, after scraping and planing procedures, presented at least 2 teeth meeting the following inclusion criteria: presence of gingival recession without or with a periodontal pocket up to 5mm probing depth, which presented painful sensitivity response to tactile stimulus. and evaporative. Subjects were randomized into 3 groups: Placebo Group (GP) - Placebo Gel application followed by Placebo solution (distilled water); GPG- Placebo Gel application followed by application 5% aqueous glutaraldehyde solution; GSG - Application of 37% phosphoric acid followed by 5% aqueous glutaraldehyde solution. The sensitivity of the dental elements was evaluated by pain stimuli (tactile and evaporative) with the aid of a Visual Analog Scale (VAS). A questionnaire was applied to patients with the objective of capturing psychosocial experiences, prior to treatment and one month after its completion, to assess the impact of desensitizing treatment on health-related quality of life. Data will be collected and appropriate statistical tests will be applied.
Objective: The purpose of this randomized controlled split-mouth clinical trial was to evaluate the effectiveness of MI paste in reducing sensitivity associated vital bleaching. Methods: 45 subjects were randomly divided into two groups, based upon which arch received MI Paste. Group 1 bleached Maxillary arch, Group 2 bleached mandibular arch. Two weeks later subjects stopped bleaching the first arch and started second arch. Sensitivity was measured by VAS daily log scale for two weeks. Shade was taken with colorimeter and Classic Vita shade guide at baseline, immediate post-bleaching, and two weeks post-bleaching. Longitudinal sensitivity over the 14 days period of bleaching was summarized. The Wilcoxon Signed Rank test was used to compare summary measures.