2% sodium fluoride-iontophoresis compared to a commercially available desensitizing agent

Abstract

Background: Dentin hypersensitivity is a common clinical condition and age-old complaint, presenting problems to both the patient and the dentist. Besides causing discomfort, the condition may deter a person from establishing or maintaining adequate oral hygiene procedures, further complicating oral health. The failure to practice satisfactory plaque control has well-established consequences on gingival and periodontal health. Thus, a cycle of sensitive teeth leading to reduced plaque control, more periodontal disease, and more recession may be established.

Methods: The hypersensitive teeth were identified by the patient and verified by the light stroke of a dental explorer along the cervical area of all teeth present. Subjects fulfilling the inclusion and exclusion criteria were evaluated using tactile, 1-second air blast, and cold water stimuli, and the subject's response was recorded on the verbal rating scale. A total of 425 teeth from 50 patients included in this study were randomly divided into two groups: group 1, who received 2% sodium fluoride-iontophoresis (NaF) and group 2, who received an aqueous solution of hydroxy-ethyl-methacrylate and glutaraldehyde (HEMA-G). The teeth were evaluated immediately after treatment and at 2 weeks, 1 month, and 3 months. In case of failure at the 2-week interval, the affected tooth was retreated with the same drug as before and evaluated further.

Results: The results were statistically analyzed, and it was found that group 1 treatment was more effective than group 2 at 1- and 3-month intervals. There was a comparatively greater recurrence of hypersensitivity in group 2. A comparable number of teeth required repeat dosage in both groups. Teeth which required repeat dosage had greater mean discomfort scores at baseline for all three tests than the teeth which did not require a repeat dose.

Conclusions: Both agents showed significant reduction in sensitivity at all time intervals compared to baseline; however, NaF had a comparatively greater effect than HEMA-G at both the 1- and 3-month intervals; an almost equal number of teeth in both groups required repeat doses. Teeth with a higher initial sensitivity score required a repeat dose. Both agents were found to be equally effective immediately after application; the 2% NaF was comparatively better than HEMA-G in providing long-term relief.