|
Comparative evaluation of the efficacy of light amplification by the stimulated emission of radiation, desensitizing agents, and their combined effect on dentinal hypersensitivity in cuspids and bicuspids – In Vivo Study
Shazia Siddiqui1, Mohsin Khan2, Ramesh Chandra3, Supratim Tripathi4, Jyoti Jain5, Urvashi Ojha Tiwari6
1 Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, TMU, Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh, India
2 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, TMU, Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh, India
3 Department of Conservative and Endodontics, Career Institute of Dental Sciences and Hospital, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India
4 Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Career Postgraduate Institute of Dental Sciences and Hospital, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India
5 Associate Professor, RML, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India
6 Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Dental College Azamgarh, Azamgarh, Uttar Pradesh, India
Correspondence Address:
Dr. Shazia Siddiqui
B12 Insaf Nagar Ext Near Panigaon Indira Nagar Lucknow - 226 016, Uttar Pradesh
India
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/jcd.jcd_47_22
|
|
Context: Dentinal Hypersensitivity is the most common dental problem, in order to find a suitable treatment plan this study was conducted incorporating LASER and desensitizing agents on the patients complaining of dentinal hypersensitivity in cuspids and bicuspids. Most of the desensitizing agents provided incomplete relief hence the combination of LASER and Desensitizing agents proved to be successful.
Aim: The aim of this study is to evaluate and compare the efficacy of individual desensitizing agents and c (LASER) and also to know their potential in reducing dentinal hypersensitivity when both desensitizing agents and LASER are combined together and applied on cuspids and bicuspids.
Setting and Design: Sixty patients with sensitivity only in cuspids and bicuspids and not having caries, restoration, or undergoing any desensitizing therapy were selected. Patients were divided into 5 groups with 12 patients in each group.
Materials and Methods: Air blast stimulus was given for 10 s from 1 cm distance on the affected group. Verbal analog score was recorded. Treatment was carried on according to the groups mentioned: Group I – nanohydroxyapatite was applied for 15 min; Group II – biosilicate was applied for 15 min; Group III – LASER application was done twice for 60 s in noncontact mode; Group IV – Nanohydroxyapatite plus LASER application; and Group V – biosilicate plus LASER application. Desensitizing agent was applied with the applicator tip and was left for 15 min. It was then rinsed and again the stimulus was given, and the score was recorded. The same treatment procedure was repeated on 1st, 7th, and 14th day and the score was recorded and analyzed using ANOVA.
Results: The maximum reduction in sensitivity score was observed in patients where nanohydroxyapatite and LASER application was done.
Conclusion: All the investigated treatments have promising desensitizing potential, but maximum was found in Group IV > Group V > Group III > Group I > Group II.
|
