Effect of a Self-adhering Material in Dental Hypersensitivity

Study Results

Results pending

The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.

Basic Information

Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.

Recruitment Status

COMPLETED

Clinical Phase

NA

Total Enrollment

17 participants

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

2012-03-31

Study Completion Date

2015-12-31

Brief Summary

Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

Aim: To compare the desensitizing capacity of Vertise Flow™ (VF), a new self adhering material, in the treatment of dentine hypersensitivity (DH) in patients who are xerostomic due to radiotherapy for head and neck cancer.

Methods: A total of 17 patients were selected for the study. The study was conducted as a split-mouth randomized clinical trial comparing: 1) VF 2) Universal Dentin Sealant (UDS), 3) Clearfil Protect Bond (CPB) and 4) Flor-Opal® Varnish (FOV). Basal and stimulated salivary flow was recorded for each patient according to the method described by Sreebny. The pain experience was generated by a cold stimulus directly to a sensitive tooth surface and assessed using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). The response was recorded before the application of the materials (PRE-1), immediately after (POST-1), at 1-week (POST-2), 4-weeks (POST-3) and 12-week controls (POST-4).

Related Clinical Trials

Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.

Evaluation of Self-adhesive Hybrid Resin Composite Compared to a Traditional Composite Resin in Restorations of NCCLs

NCT05751382

Tooth Restoration

TERMINATED NA

Effectiveness of Bioactiveglass Air Abrasion Versus Fluoride Varnish in Management of Dentin Hypersensitivity

NCT03285360

Hypersensitivity Dentin Tooth Hypersensitivity

COMPLETED PHASE1

A Comparison of Long-Term Effectiveness of Two Desensitizing Products

NCT03851900

Dentin Hypersensitivity

COMPLETED NA

Compariing a Bioactive Resin Material Used As A Fissure Sealant To A Conventional Resin

NCT04052802

Demineralization, Tooth Demineralization, Fissure Non-Cavitated Caries

UNKNOWN NA

Minimal Instrumentation With Intracanal Heating and Activation of Sodium Hypochlorite for the Management of Teeth With Periapical Lesions

NCT06461728

Heating and Activation of Sodium Hypochlorite

RECRUITING NA

Detailed Description

Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.

Participants The study was designed as a split-mouth randomized clinical trial. The protocol and informed consent forms were approved by the ethics committee at the University of Sassari (n° 1000/CE).

To participate in the study, all the subjects were carefully informed about the study's purpose, risks and benefits.

The study inclusion criteria were the following:

* Generally good health despite the seriousness of their illness;
* A clinical reduction of salivary flow;
* The presence of two or three teeth which were hypersensitive to stimulation with a blast of air.

In addition, patients were considered suitable for the study if they had sensitive teeth showing abrasion, erosion or recession with the exposure of the cervical dentine.

The study exclusion criteria were:

* teeth with subjective or objective evidence of carious lesions, pulpitis, restorations, premature contact, cracked enamel, active periapical infection or that had received periodontal surgery or root-planning up to 6 months prior to the investigation;
* patients who had received professional desensitizing therapy during the previous 3 months;
* patients who had used desensitizing toothpaste in the last 6 weeks. Patients were also excluded if they were under significant medication that could have interfered with pain perception (e.g., antidepressants, anti-inflammatory drugs, sedatives, and muscle relaxants).

Clinical Procedure

Saliva collection

All salivary assessments were performed in the absence of acute sialadenitis. All assessments were performed by the same observer. The flow rate was determined in every person according to the method described by Sreebny. Saliva was collected in a standardised manner. Patients were instructed not to eat, drink, or smoke for 90 minutes before the sialometric assessment. All assessments were performed at a fixed time of the day, between 10 am and 1 pm, in order to minimise fluctuations related to a circadian rhythm of salivary secretion and composition. The whole saliva sample was collected in pre-weighed plastic tubes using electronic scales.

Unstimulated salivary secretions were collected for 5 min with the patient seated in an upright position, with the head tilted forward . When possible the tongue, cheek and lip movements were limited during the procedure. At the end of the collection period the patient had to expectorate saliva into the test-tube. Stimulated whole saliva samples were collected by asking patients to chew a small block of paraffin wax or chewing gum. All the saliva secreted for 5 min was then collected in the test-tube. Measuring vessels were weighed after each collection using an electronic scales, and salivary flow rate was expressed in ml/min, which is nearly equivalent to g/min (31). A secretion rate \< 0.1-0.2 ml/min for unstimulated flow and \< 0.5-0.7 ml/min for stimulated flow was considered as an objective sign of hyposalivation.

Assessment of hypersensitivity and application of desensitizing agents.

A week before the experiment, patients received oral prophylaxis. Non-fluoride toothpaste (Biorepair, Coswell), a soft toothbrush (Oral-B Sensitive Advantage, Procter \& Gamble) and oral hygiene instructions were also provided. The level of sensitivity experienced by each patient was considered as independent of the position of the hypersensitive tooth in the oral cavity. The pain experience was assessed by a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) using the methodology described in our previous study. The pain experience was measured using a VAS graded from 1 to 10. The pain stimulus was given by one examiner with the same equipment yielding similar air pressure each time, while another one performed the treatments. The same operator carried out the sensitivity test evaluating the subject's response before the application of the materials (PRE-1), immediately after (POST-1), after 1 week (POST-2), 4 weeks (POST-3), and 12 weeks (POST-4) .

The following dental materials were used following the manufacturers' instructions: Verities Flow™ (VF) (Kerr Corporation, Orange, CA, USA), a self-adhering composite; Universal Dentin Sealant (UDS) (Ultradent Products Inc., South Jordan, UT, USA), a biocompatible, non-polymerizable, high molecular weight resin sealant in alcohol solvent; Clearfil Protect Bond (CPB), (Kuraray Noritake Dental, Osaka, Japan) a methacrylate-based resin, self-etching adhesive system, and Flor-Opal® Varnish (FOV), (Ultradent Products Inc., South Jordan, UT, USA), a fluoride-based varnish.

In view of the treatment with the desensitizing agents, teeth were randomly assigned into four groups (N = per group).

Conditions

See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.

Dentin Sensitivity Xerostomia

Study Design

Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.

Allocation Method

NA

Intervention Model

SINGLE_GROUP

Primary Study Purpose

TREATMENT

Blinding Strategy

NONE

Study Groups

Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.

Xerostomic Patients

Patients with evident clinical signs of xerostomia who experienced dentinal hypersensitivity after undergoing radiation therapy due to head and neck cancer.

The following dental materials will be used following the manufacturers' instructions: Veritise Flow; Universal Dentin Sealant; Clearfil Protect Bond, and Flor-Opal® Varnish. In view of the treatment with the desensitizing agents, teeth were randomly assigned into four groups.

the application of the materials will be made only once. The effectiveness will be evaluated: immediately after application and after 1, 4, 12 weeks.

Group Type EXPERIMENTAL

Veritise Flow

Intervention Type OTHER

Self-adhering composite

Universal Dentin Sealant

Intervention Type OTHER

non-polymerizable, high molecular weight resin sealant

Clearfil Protect Bond

Intervention Type OTHER

methacrylate-based resin, self-etching adhesive system

Flor-Opal® Varnish

Intervention Type OTHER

fluoride-based varnish

Interventions

Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.

Veritise Flow

Self-adhering composite

Intervention Type OTHER

Universal Dentin Sealant

non-polymerizable, high molecular weight resin sealant

Intervention Type OTHER

Clearfil Protect Bond

methacrylate-based resin, self-etching adhesive system

Intervention Type OTHER

Flor-Opal® Varnish

fluoride-based varnish

Intervention Type OTHER

Other Intervention Names

Discover alternative or legacy names that may be used to describe the listed interventions across different sources.

Kerr Corporation, USA; Batch no. 3391829 Ultradent Products Inc., USA; Batch no. 052809 Kuraray Noritake Dental, Japan; Batch no. 041212 Ultradent Products Inc., USA; Batch no. 122005

Eligibility Criteria

Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.

Inclusion Criteria

* Generally good health despite the seriousness of their illness;
* A clinical reduction of salivary flow;
* The presence of two or three teeth which were hypersensitive to stimulation with a blast of air.

In addition, patients were considered suitable for the study if they had sensitive teeth showing abrasion, erosion or recession with the exposure of the cervical dentine.

Exclusion Criteria

* teeth with subjective or objective evidence of carious lesions, pulpitis, restorations, premature contact, cracked enamel, active periapical infection or that had received periodontal surgery or root-planning up to 6 months prior to the investigation;
* patients who had received professional desensitizing therapy during the previous 3 months;
* patients who had used desensitizing toothpaste in the last 6 weeks. Patients were also excluded if they were under significant medication that could have interfered with pain perception (e.g., antidepressants, anti-inflammatory drugs, sedatives, and muscle relaxants).

Eligible Sex

ALL

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No