An Audit of Dentine Hypersensitivity Treatments in Six General Dental Practices in Scotland

Authors: Chadwick, R Graham1; Mason, Andrew G.1

Source: Primary Dental Care, Volume 15, Number 4, October 2008 , pp. 129-134(6)

Publisher: Faculty of General Dental Practice (UK)

Key:
Free Content - Free Content
New Content - New Content
Subscribed Content - Subscribed Content
Free Trial Content - Free Trial Content

Abstract:

Aims: This investigation sought to: (a) determine the agents used by nine dentists to treat dentine hypersensitivity and measure their effectiveness; (b) evaluate the adoptive ease and apparent success of the most effective treatment when used by all nine dentists; and (c) validate a novel categorical ranking score for dentine hypersensitivity.

Methods: A clinical audit methodology was used in the setting of general dental practice. In the initial data-collection round, patients presenting with dentine hypersensitivity were treated using the dentist's favoured regimen. Evaluation of agent effectiveness was made by patient completion of a pre- and post-treatment visual analogue scale (VAS) for the frequency (f) and severity (s) of hypersensitivity. A four-point categorical ranking scale (CRS) was also used to assess the impact of hypersensitivity upon lifestyle (L) (1=No sensitivity/effect on what I eat/drink; 2=Sometimes sensitive, rarely interfering with what I eat/drink; 3=Sometimes sensitive, occasionally interfering with what I eat/drink; 4=Always sensitive, always interfering with what I eat/drink). The most successful treatment was determined and used by all participating dentists. Its effectiveness was then assessed using the same criteria.

Results: Four agents were routinely used to treat hypersensitivity: (Duraphat (D) (Colgate), Duraphat & Sensodyne (DS) (GlaxoSmithKline), Sensodyne (S) (GlaxoSmithKline), Seal & Protect (SP) (De Trey, Dentsply). All produced statistically significant (P<0.001) reductions in VAS (Tukey) and CRS (Kruskal-Wallis) scores, except for DS and S. Of these, the greatest percentage reduction was seen for SP (f=72.01%, s=71.19%, L=45.98%). When SP was applied by all dentists, similar percentage reductions were seen (f=68.74%, s=75.85%, L=38.33%). The CRS, in both data-collection rounds, correlated well with the corresponding VAS scores (Spearman R for f=0.77 (P<0.001) and for s=0.80 (P<0.001).

Conclusion: For the dentists in this audit, the use of SP was found to be reliable and predictable. The CRS provided a simple and reliable measure of dentine hypersensitivity. Subject to validation in a larger study, this could be used in a future audit as an alternative to multiple VAS scores.

Keywords: DENTAL; HYPERSENSITIVITY; TREATMENT; AUDIT

Document Type: Research article

DOI: 10.1308/135576108785891051

Affiliations: 1: Dental School and Hospital, Dundee, UK

The full text electronic article is available for purchase. You will be able to download the full text electronic article after payment.

$32.34 plus tax      Refund Policy

 

OR

Or sign up for a free trial

Back to top

Key:
Free Content - Free Content
New Content - New Content
Subscribed Content - Subscribed Content
Free Trial Content - Free Trial Content
Share this item with others: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Page Help Click here for Page Help
Shopping cart
Tools
Sign in






Need to register?
Sign up here
Text size: A | A | A | A