PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Dentin Sensitivity”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 343 records · Page 19Linked to original sources
PubMedDate not supplied

A clinical comparison of two cements for levels of post-operative sensitivity in a practice-based setting.

UNLABELLED: This study compared the post-operative results of cementing full crowns (all metal or PFM) with either a conventional (Fuji I, GC; n=102) or a resin modified GI luting cement (Rely X, 3M/ESPE; n=107). METHODS: Ten private practitioners fabricated 209 crowns using standardized preparation/luting criteria and randomly assigned cements. Patients self-reported temperature and biting sensitivity, on a 0-10 scale at 24 hours, one week, one month and three months post-cementation. Data were analyzed using t-tests, confirmatory Mann-Whitney tests and Pearson correlations, with a significance level of p < or = 0.05. RESULTS: Of all patients, 50.7% reported any sensitivity at any time period. Mean sensitivity for all patients on the 10-point scale was 0.52 for temperature and 0.23 for biting. Cements did not differ in cold or biting sensitivity at any time. There were many significant (though low) correlations between the sensitivity measures and age (inverse relationship) and dentin area of preparation (direct). The practice-based format provided a viable alternative to performing clinical research.

Age Factors↗
PubMed2006

Sensory transduction mechanisms responsible for pain caused by cold stimulation of dentine in man.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects on the sensitivity of exposed dentine to cold that are produced when dentine is etched to remove the smear layer and when the tubules are blocked again with calcium oxalate. Separate in vitro observations were made on the effects of these procedures on fluid flow through the dentine. DESIGN: The experiments were carried out on 24 premolars in 17 subjects. Dentine was exposed at the tip of the buccal cusp and cold stimuli were applied by placing the tip of an ice stick on the cavity floor for 5s under the following conditions: before etching the dentine, after etching, and after oxalate treatment. The subject indicated the intensity of any pain produced on a visual analogue scale (VAS). Fluid flow through the dentine was recorded under similar conditions in eight of the teeth in vitro. RESULTS: The mean VAS score produced by the ice before etching was 21.3+/-19.5mm (S.D.). This increased significantly to 85.4+/-15.6mm after etching (P<0.01). After oxalate treatment, it decreased significantly to 8.5+/-13.3mm. The corresponding mean rates of fluid flow through dentine were 2.15+/-1.02, 1.55+/-0.84, and 2.29+/-1.28nL/smm(2) exposed dentine, respectively. The mean after etching was significantly less than the other two values (P<0.05). CONCLUSION: If the pain was due to hydrodynamic receptors, their sensitivity to dentinal fluid flow changed when the tubules were opened or closed. Alternatively the pain was produced by receptors sensitive to some other change produced by the cold stimuli, such as specific cold receptors.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1993

The use of topical guanethidine in the relief of dentine hypersensitivity: a controlled study.

After a pilot study had indicated that the topical application of guanethidine might be of value in the treatment of tooth dentine hypersensitivity, a double-blind study was undertaken to investigate whether guanethidine was more effective than a distilled water control in alleviating dentinal pain. In 39 adult subjects, who had complained of dentine hypersensitivity, a 1 sec blast of air from a dental 3-in-1 syringe was directed onto sensitive root dentine at an angle of 90 degrees from a distance of 1 cm. The severity of the resulting pain was indicated by the subject on a 10 cm visual analogue scale (VAS). One droplet of either 1% guanethidine monosulphate (Ismelin, Ciba-Geigy) or distilled water, allocated at random, was applied to the dentine for 1 min. The tooth was re-tested with the standardised air blast and a second VAS was marked by the subject. In total, 19 patients received guanethidine and 20 received water. VAS scores before treatment in the 2 groups treated with either guanethidine or water (means: 6.5 +/- 2.2 and 6.0 +/- 2.5, respectively) were not significantly different (Mann-Whitney, P = 0.48) whereas the VAS scores in the 2 groups after treatment with guanethidine or water (means: 2.7 +/- 2.4 and 4.8 +/- 2.9, respectively) were significantly different (Mann-Whitney, P < 0.02). It was concluded that guanethidine reduced dentinal hypersensitivity more effectively than distilled water.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Administration, Topical↗