Effectiveness of Air Abrasion Bioactive Glass Technology, light cured resin-based desensitizer and Fluoride Varnish Application in Management of Hypersensitivity of Non-Carious Cervical Lesions: A Randomized Clinical Trial. | ||||
| Dental Science Updates | ||||
| Volume 6, Issue 2, September 2025, Page 417-427 PDF (358.25 K) | ||||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||||
| DOI: 10.21608/dsu.2025.382109.1300 | ||||
 View on SCiNiTO | ||||
| Authors | ||||
mohamed heiba   1; Mohamed Fouad Haridy 2; Ahmed Fawzy Abo El Ezz 3; amr faysal ghoniem 4
| ||||
| 1Conservative Dentistry Department, Faculty of Dentistry, The British University in Egypt, Cairo, Egypt. | ||||
| 2Department of Conservative Dentistry, Cairo University and British University in Egypt, Cairo, Egypt. | ||||
| 3Professor of Operative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Suez Canal University, Ismailia, Egypt. | ||||
| 4Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Suez Canal University, Ismailia Egypt. | ||||
| Abstract | ||||
| Introduction: Dentin hypersensitivity (DH) can be defined as a short, sharp pain arising from exposed dentin in response to thermal, tactile, osmotic, or chemicalstimuli, which cannot be attributed to any other dental defect or pathology. The hydrodynamic theory, the most accepted explanation, suggests that pain results from fluid movement within tubules, which activates pulpal nerves. Management strategies aim to either reduce nerve sensitivity or block the tubules. Aim:Thisstudy was conducted to compare the clinical effectiveness of light-cured resin-based desensitizer and bioactive glass powder versus fluoride varnish in treating dentin hypersensitivity (DH) in adults with cervical non-carious lesions over a six-month follow-up period using Visual Analogue Scale (VAS scale). Materials and Methods: A total of 75 participants fulfilling the criteria were divided into 3 groups (n=25); group1: NCCL were treated using fluoride varnish, group 2: NCCL was treated using “Sylc®“ air abrasion and group 3 was treated using light cured desensitizer agent; SHIELD FORCE PLUS. Hypersensitivity was assessed immediately, 3 and 6 months after treatment. Median and range values were used to represent the ordinal data of the VAS. Intergroup and intragroup comparisons were done using Mann Whitney U test and Friedman test of repeated measures, respectively. For every test, P ≤0.05 was used as the significance threshold. Results: The overall Effect of the 3 interventions showed a statistical significant difference in the VAS score (P<0.001); whereas the Fluoride varnish produced the significantly highest VAS, followed by Sylc air polishing, then light-cured desensitizer. However, within each follow-up interval, no statistical significant difference in the VAS scores wasfound in baseline records among the three interventions despite a remarkable statistical significant difference within the 3 follow-up intervals. Conclusions: Lightcured desensitizing agent is an immediate and long-lasting effective method in treating hypersensitivity of NCCL. On the other hand, fluoride varnish is still an efficient treatment for dentin hypersensitivity but not reliable if applied in single application. | ||||
| Keywords | ||||
| Dentin hypersensitivity; visual analog scale; VAS; fluoride varnish light- cured desensitizer; sylc powder; bioactive glass | ||||
|
Statistics Article View: 6 PDF Download: 1 |
||||
