Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Clinical Trial
. 2002 Mar;29(3):226-31.
doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2842.2002.00813.x.

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

Affiliations
Clinical Trial

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

D G Gillam et al. J Oral Rehabil. 2002 Mar.

Erratum in

  • J Oral Rehabil. 2003 Apr;30(4):446

Abstract

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources