Home  About us  Contact
 

Dentine Hypersensitivity (dentine + hypersensitivity)

Distribution by Scientific Domains
Medical Sciences100%

Selected Abstracts

Dentists' perceptions of dentine hypersensitivity and knowledge of its treatment

JOURNAL OF ORAL REHABILITATION, Issue 3 2002
D. G. Gillam
The aim of the present investigation was to determine by questionnaire, UK dentists' perception of Dentine Hypersensitivity (DH) and knowledge of its treatment. A total of 403 questionnaires were sent to a selected group of UK dentists who had either inquired about further postgraduate education or had attended a course at the Eastman Dental Institute/Hospital. A total of 181 of 403 dentists (44·9%) (118M; 36F, 17 no response, mean age 38·2 years [s.d. 8·97]) returned the questionnaire. About 92·8% (n=168) of responding dentists claimed to see patients with DH in their practice. According to the dentists' replies at least one of four of their patients suffered from the complaint. About 71·8% (n=130) of dentists reported that DH was a severe problem in at least 10% of their patients and that pain from DH lasted no more than 4 weeks. Most of responding dentists claimed to be asked about DH by their patients and stated that they offered advice or treatment to their patients. Nearly 87·3% (n=158) of responding dentists provided a wide range of treatment options/advice which included both In-office and over-the-counter (OTC) products. Popular responses included desensitizing pastes/gels, Topical F, varnishes and toothpastes/rinses/gels, advice on atraumatic tooth brushing, dentine bonding agents (DBA), glass,ionomer cements (GIC) and other unspecified restorations. Of the various In-office treatments Duraphat was the most cited choice of varnish/primer options. Sensodyne toothpaste was the most popular of the specified OTC products. Most dentists appeared to understand the aetiological features associated with DH and provided a wide range of factors including the effects of incorrect tooth brushing, dietary acids as well as the possible influence on non-dental topics such as stress. Most responding dentists believed that their advice on DH was generally effective although they did highlight that certain aspects on the condition were lacking such as appropriate scientific information including the prevention of DH and its treatment. The results from the present study highlight several discrepancies in the perception and knowledge of the treatment of DH between dentists and their patients. The results from this study are, however, reasonably consistent with those previously reported by Dutch investigators. The results from this study also highlighted a need for guidelines on the aetiology, prevention and treatment of DH for both dentists and their patients. The reported average frequency and duration of discomfort from DH by the responding dentists appeared to be consistent with the available literature. [source]

Dentine hypersensitivity in subjects recruited for clinical trials: clinical evaluation, prevalence and intra-oral distribution

JOURNAL OF ORAL REHABILITATION, Issue 3 2002
D. G. Gillam
Relatively few studies have reported on the frequency, distribution and severity of dentine hypersensitivity (DH) in subjects recruited for clinical trials of desensitizing agents. Potential subjects (n= 48 M, 81 F, mean age 35·1 years) for inclusion into such a study were screened to determine the extent of the problem. 117 subjects (41 M, 76 F) mean age 24·9 years were clinically examined. Evaluation by questionnaire indicated that the prevalence of DH was proportionately higher in the 20,29·9 years (34·9%), and 30,39·9 years groups (33·3%), respectively. Sensitivity to cold was the main presenting symptom. Tactile (probe) and cold air (dental air syringe) stimuli were used to clinically evaluate DH. Of the teeth eligible for evaluation 1561/3136 (49·8%) responded to either one or both of the test stimuli; 274/3136 (8·7%) responded to tactile only stimulation, 779/3136 (24·8%) to thermal only stimulation and 508/3136 (16·2%) to both tactile and thermal stimulation. Of those teeth responding to the stimuli, 477 (30·6%) were premolars, 437 (28%) incisors, 415 (26·8%) molars and 232 (14·9%) canines. The results agree with those of previously reported studies in that DH is most frequently observed on premolars and that proportionately more teeth are sensitive to evaporative than to tactile stimulation. Furthermore it would appear from the results of the study that tactile is less effective than thermal/evaporative stimulation in the evaluation of DH. [source]

Dentine hypersensitivity: preventive and therapeutic approaches to treatment

PERIODONTOLOGY 2000, Issue 1 2008
Nicola X. West
First page of article [source]

Dentine hypersensitivity , Australian dentists' perspective

AUSTRALIAN DENTAL JOURNAL, Issue 2 2010
N Amarasena
Abstract Background:, Dentine hypersensitivity is a frequent clinical presentation though inadequately comprehended by dentists. The objective of this study was to describe Australian dentists' perception on the occurrence, predisposing factors, triggers, diagnosis and management of dentine hypersensitivity. Methods:, Eight hundred dentists were randomly selected using the Australian Dental Association membership list and invited to participate in a questionnaire-based survey. Results:, Out of 295 responding dentists, 284 private practitioners were included in the final analysis. Most dentists perceived that the occurrence of dentine hypersensitivity was <20% and commonest among 30,49 year olds. According to them, abrasion and gingival recession were the main predisposing factors whilst cold stimuli were the commonest trigger. A differential diagnosis-based approach was adopted by a majority to diagnose dentine hypersensitivity although routine screening was resorted to by a few. Most dentists were aware of the current mechanisms underlying dentine hypersensitivity whereas the majority perceived that ongoing predisposing factors was the main reason for dentine tubules to remain exposed. The commonest management strategy employed by most dentists was to prescribe desensitizing agents for home use. Conclusions:, Australian dentists' perception of dentine hypersensitivity is generally consistent with the current scientific consensus on this subject. [source]

Advances in the treatment of root dentine sensitivity: mechanisms and treatment principles

ENDODONTIC TOPICS, Issue 1 2006
D.G. GILLAM
There are limited studies specifically on the prevalence of root dentine hypersensitivity or root sensitivity per se; most of the published information relates to the prevalence of dentine hypersensitivity (DH). Several investigators have suggested that there may be some justification on the basis of differing pathologies of distinguishing between those individuals complaining of DH who have relatively healthy mouths with those who complain of DH as a result of periodontal disease and/or its treatment. It is generally recognized that those individuals diagnosed with periodontal disease and having periodontal therapy including scaling procedures may have a higher prevalence than those who present with healthy mouths and evidence of gingival recession. The availability of a vast array of treatments, however, would indicate either that there is no one effective desensitizing agent for completely resolving the discomfort or that the condition, due to its highly subjective nature, is difficult to treat irrespective of the available treatment options. The importance of implementing preventative strategies in identifying and eliminating predisposing factors in particularly erosive factors (e.g. dietary acids) cannot be ignored if the practitioner is going to treat this troublesome clinical condition successfully. This paper will review the published literature and provide information as to the prevalence of the condition, its etiology and causal factors, as well as recommendations for the clinical management of the problem. [source]

Dentists' perceptions of dentine hypersensitivity and knowledge of its treatment

JOURNAL OF ORAL REHABILITATION, Issue 3 2002
D. G. Gillam
The aim of the present investigation was to determine by questionnaire, UK dentists' perception of Dentine Hypersensitivity (DH) and knowledge of its treatment. A total of 403 questionnaires were sent to a selected group of UK dentists who had either inquired about further postgraduate education or had attended a course at the Eastman Dental Institute/Hospital. A total of 181 of 403 dentists (44·9%) (118M; 36F, 17 no response, mean age 38·2 years [s.d. 8·97]) returned the questionnaire. About 92·8% (n=168) of responding dentists claimed to see patients with DH in their practice. According to the dentists' replies at least one of four of their patients suffered from the complaint. About 71·8% (n=130) of dentists reported that DH was a severe problem in at least 10% of their patients and that pain from DH lasted no more than 4 weeks. Most of responding dentists claimed to be asked about DH by their patients and stated that they offered advice or treatment to their patients. Nearly 87·3% (n=158) of responding dentists provided a wide range of treatment options/advice which included both In-office and over-the-counter (OTC) products. Popular responses included desensitizing pastes/gels, Topical F, varnishes and toothpastes/rinses/gels, advice on atraumatic tooth brushing, dentine bonding agents (DBA), glass,ionomer cements (GIC) and other unspecified restorations. Of the various In-office treatments Duraphat was the most cited choice of varnish/primer options. Sensodyne toothpaste was the most popular of the specified OTC products. Most dentists appeared to understand the aetiological features associated with DH and provided a wide range of factors including the effects of incorrect tooth brushing, dietary acids as well as the possible influence on non-dental topics such as stress. Most responding dentists believed that their advice on DH was generally effective although they did highlight that certain aspects on the condition were lacking such as appropriate scientific information including the prevention of DH and its treatment. The results from the present study highlight several discrepancies in the perception and knowledge of the treatment of DH between dentists and their patients. The results from this study are, however, reasonably consistent with those previously reported by Dutch investigators. The results from this study also highlighted a need for guidelines on the aetiology, prevention and treatment of DH for both dentists and their patients. The reported average frequency and duration of discomfort from DH by the responding dentists appeared to be consistent with the available literature. [source]

Dentine hypersensitivity in subjects recruited for clinical trials: clinical evaluation, prevalence and intra-oral distribution

JOURNAL OF ORAL REHABILITATION, Issue 3 2002
D. G. Gillam
Relatively few studies have reported on the frequency, distribution and severity of dentine hypersensitivity (DH) in subjects recruited for clinical trials of desensitizing agents. Potential subjects (n= 48 M, 81 F, mean age 35·1 years) for inclusion into such a study were screened to determine the extent of the problem. 117 subjects (41 M, 76 F) mean age 24·9 years were clinically examined. Evaluation by questionnaire indicated that the prevalence of DH was proportionately higher in the 20,29·9 years (34·9%), and 30,39·9 years groups (33·3%), respectively. Sensitivity to cold was the main presenting symptom. Tactile (probe) and cold air (dental air syringe) stimuli were used to clinically evaluate DH. Of the teeth eligible for evaluation 1561/3136 (49·8%) responded to either one or both of the test stimuli; 274/3136 (8·7%) responded to tactile only stimulation, 779/3136 (24·8%) to thermal only stimulation and 508/3136 (16·2%) to both tactile and thermal stimulation. Of those teeth responding to the stimuli, 477 (30·6%) were premolars, 437 (28%) incisors, 415 (26·8%) molars and 232 (14·9%) canines. The results agree with those of previously reported studies in that DH is most frequently observed on premolars and that proportionately more teeth are sensitive to evaporative than to tactile stimulation. Furthermore it would appear from the results of the study that tactile is less effective than thermal/evaporative stimulation in the evaluation of DH. [source]

Comparison of dentine hypersensitivity in selected occidental and oriental populations

JOURNAL OF ORAL REHABILITATION, Issue 1 2001
D. G. Gillam
Epidemiological data on dentine hypersensitivity (DH) prevalence are limited. Few studies have compared prevalence between populations. The aim of this investigation, therefore, was to compare the perception and prevalence of DH in two distinct non-periodontal practice populations, one U.K. and one Korean. Completed questionnaires from 557 patients (230 males and 327 females, comprising 115 males and 162 females, mean age 41·7 years (s.d.=14·36), U.K. and 115 males and 165 females, mean age 29·7 years (s.d.=11·86), Korean) were collected. Analysis was by frequency distribution and cross-tabulation (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS)). DH prevalence was similar and at levels comparable with those reported previously. Prevalence was higher in the third and fourth decades in both populations. Although there were no differences between U.K. or Korean males and U.K. or Korean females, there was a significant difference between gender reporting of DH, with more females complaining of DH than males (standard normal deviation (SND)=4·3, 95% confidence interval (CI)=0·1134,0·2736). DH appeared to be regarded by patients as not severe in most cases, so treatment was not generally sought. Of those who claimed to have sought treatment, a significant number had received restorative treatment. Of those patients, only 23·3% of U.K. and ,2% of Korean patients claimed to have used a desensitizing dentifrice. Pain from DH was reported as low grade (slight, occasional) occurring over 5 years in both populations. Cold appeared to be the most reported stimulus in the two populations. Less periodontal surgery had been undertaken in these two populations (12·6% U.K. and 7·1% Korean) compared with those referred to a teaching hospital periodontal department (34·5%). This compared favourably with previous findings in the general dental population (15·5%). Discomfort following hygiene therapy did not appear to last ,7 days in either population. The results indicated that there were no significant differences between U.K.- and Korean-based populations in their perception of DH, with the exception that more females complained of sensitivity than males in both groups. Overall, DH was not considered a major dental problem by most patients in either of the populations. [source]

Dentine hypersensitivity , Australian dentists' perspective

AUSTRALIAN DENTAL JOURNAL, Issue 2 2010
N Amarasena
Abstract Background:, Dentine hypersensitivity is a frequent clinical presentation though inadequately comprehended by dentists. The objective of this study was to describe Australian dentists' perception on the occurrence, predisposing factors, triggers, diagnosis and management of dentine hypersensitivity. Methods:, Eight hundred dentists were randomly selected using the Australian Dental Association membership list and invited to participate in a questionnaire-based survey. Results:, Out of 295 responding dentists, 284 private practitioners were included in the final analysis. Most dentists perceived that the occurrence of dentine hypersensitivity was <20% and commonest among 30,49 year olds. According to them, abrasion and gingival recession were the main predisposing factors whilst cold stimuli were the commonest trigger. A differential diagnosis-based approach was adopted by a majority to diagnose dentine hypersensitivity although routine screening was resorted to by a few. Most dentists were aware of the current mechanisms underlying dentine hypersensitivity whereas the majority perceived that ongoing predisposing factors was the main reason for dentine tubules to remain exposed. The commonest management strategy employed by most dentists was to prescribe desensitizing agents for home use. Conclusions:, Australian dentists' perception of dentine hypersensitivity is generally consistent with the current scientific consensus on this subject. [source]