Comparison of Fluoride Iontophoresis and Dentin Bonding Agent Application in the Treatment of Dentin Hypersensitivity: A clinical study

Background: Dentin hypersensitivity (DH) is a recurrent condition causing discomfort and most of the time, pain to the patient, generally occurring post scaling and root planing which also deters them from maintaining adequate oral hygiene. Various measures are used for treatment of this condition in clinic or in home care. Materials and Method: The subjects recruited in this randomized clinical study gave a history of tooth hypersensitivity and post scaling sensitivity of the teeth. The patients were subjected to a tactile test, air blow for 1 second and cold water stimuli and their responses were recorded on a verbal discomfort scale. A total of 28 sites (28 teeth) were divided into Group A (1.23% APF gel iontophoresis (FI) n = 14); and Group B (light cured Dentin bonding agent (DBA) n = 14). The teeth were evaluated immediately after half an hour of the treatment and at the end of 2 weeks. In case of persistent complaint, the tooth was retreated with the same modality. Results: The results were statistically analyzed using Wilcoxon matched pairs test and Mann Whitney U tests. DBA had a better effect over 2 week's period while FI had better immediate results. More recurrence was seen with FI. Conclusion: Both the techniques are useful methods of treatment of DH. In this study DBA gave better results than FI.

[1]  Swati B. Setty,et al.  Comparative efficacy of two treatment modalities for dentinal hypersensitivity: a clinical trial. , 2010, Indian journal of dental research : official publication of Indian Society for Dental Research.

[2]  R. Gupta,et al.  2% sodium fluoride-iontophoresis compared to a commercially available desensitizing agent. , 2005, Journal of periodontology.

[3]  J. Egea,et al.  Consensus-based recommendations for the diagnosis and management of dentin hypersensitivity. , 2003, Journal.

[4]  M. Addy,et al.  A cross-sectional study of dentine hypersensitivity. , 2002, Journal of clinical periodontology.

[5]  D. Gillam,et al.  Aetiology, prevalence and clinical features of cervical dentine sensitivity. , 1997, Journal of oral rehabilitation.

[6]  R. Barkhordar,et al.  Cyanoacrylate--a new treatment for hypersensitive dentin and cementum. , 1987, Journal of the American Dental Association.

[7]  G. Ong Desensitizing agents. A review. , 1986, Clinical preventive dentistry.

[8]  D. Pashley Dentin permeability, dentin sensitivity, and treatment through tubule occlusion. , 1986, Journal of endodontics.

[9]  P. Fratarcangelo,et al.  Home treatment for dentinal hypersensitivity: a comparative study. , 1982, Journal of the American Dental Association.

[10]  Yankell Sl Current treatment for dentinal hypersensitivity. At-home treatment. , 1982 .

[11]  P. Fratarcangelo,et al.  An evaluation of two methods for the quantitation of dentinal hypersensitivity. , 1979, Journal of the American Dental Association.

[12]  L. Gangarosa,et al.  Practical considerations in iontophoresis of fluoride for desensitizing dentin. , 1978, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[13]  M. Brännström,et al.  The hydrodynamics of the dentine; its possible relationship to dentinal pain. , 1972, International dental journal.