Clinical Oral Investigations

, Volume 17, Supplement 1, pp 63–71 | Cite as

The role of fluoride in the preventive management of dentin hypersensitivity and root caries

  • Lars G. PeterssonEmail author
Open Access



The objectives were to bring light on fluoride to control dentin hypersensitivity (DHS) and prevent root caries.

Materials and methods

Search strategy included papers mainly published in PubMed, Medline from October 2000 to October 2011.


Fluoride toothpaste shows a fair effect on sensitive teeth when combined with dentin fluid-obstructing agents such as different metal ions, potassium, and oxalates. Fluoride in solution, gel, and varnish give an instant and long-term relief of dentin and bleaching hypersensitivity. Combined with laser technology, a limited additional positive effect is achieved. Prevention of root caries is favored by toothpaste with 5,000 ppm F and by fluoride rinsing with 0.025–0.1 % F solutions, as the application of fluoride gel or fluoride varnish three to four times a year. Fluoride measures with tablets, chewing gum, toothpick, and flossing may be questioned because of unfavorable cost effectiveness ratio.


Most fluoride preparations in combination with dentin fluid obstruction agents are beneficial to reduce DHS. Prevention of root caries is favorable with higher fluoride concentrations in, e.g., toothpaste.

Clinical relevance

Fluoride is an effective agent to control DHS and to prevent root caries particularly when used in higher concentrations.


Fluoride Prevention Sensitive teeth Hypersensitivity Root caries 


Tooth hypersensitivity: etiology of dentin and bleaching hypersensitivity

Tooth hypersensitivity is characterized by a rather specific sharp, intensive short duration tooth pain that is rather common among millions of people today. The most common type of hypersensitivity is caused when exposed cervical cementum/dentin surfaces through different tooth wear are exposed for different stimuli. The sensitive pain is caused by different stimuli, such as electrical (pulp testers), thermal (cold–warm), mechanical–tactile (probe-scaling), osmotic (hypertonic solutions–sugars), evaporation (air blast–air jet stimulator), or chemical stimuli (acids) cause fluid movements in the dentin tubules. A convincing theory to explain this episodic and typical pain sensation is the sc. “hydrodynamic” theory. The phenomenon was first described in the early twentieth century by Gysi [1] and was later studied and explained more in detail by Brannstrom et al. and became known as the “hydrodynamic theory” with tubule fluid provoking the pain sensation [2, 3]. Markowitz and Pashley in 2008 [4] describes a certain hypersensitivity, bleaching hypersensitivity, which may occur after tooth bleaching of sound teeth with normal enamel and dentin structure and formation. Through oxidation processes, excitability of intradental nerves increases by presence of chemosensitive ion channel TRPA1, which may be activated by a variety of oxidizer compounds including hydrogen peroxide.

Exposed cervical dentin is a result of recession of the gingival margin, commonly caused by overzealous tooth brushing procedures with abrasive toothpaste and/or frequent use of toothpicks and other tool procedures. Beyond direct wear procedures, tooth erosions may develop and create hypersensitivity. Common periodontal procedures such as gingival surgery, periodontal pocket scaling, and root planning may also cause dentin hypersensitivity (DHS). Further orthodontic, prosthetic, and restorative treatments as well as tooth whitening procedures have also been reported to increase the risk for hypersensitive teeth [5, 6, 7, 8].

Exposure of dentin is not sufficient to cause hypersensitivity; the corresponding dentinal tubules must be open to allow for fluid diffusion. These fluid movements stimulate nerve fibers to elicit painful nerve stimuli in the pulp by activating mechanoreceptors of nerves situated at the inner ends of the tubules or in the outer layers of the pulp. It has been shown that sensitive teeth have much greater numbers of open tubules per unit area of exposed dentin as about double the average tubules' diameter compared to nonsensitive teeth. Therefore, it is postulated that the fluid diffusion in sensitive teeth is about a hundred times greater compared to nonsensitive teeth. A number of factors influence the direction of the dentinal fluid flow. Drying, cooling, and evaporation of hypertonic chemical stimuli cause the fluid to flow away from the pulp. Conversely, heating and probing cause fluid diffusion in the dentine tubules towards the pulp with interactions between the neural and hydrodynamic mechanisms in pulp and dentin [9].

A number of differential diagnoses may complicate the clinical situation, for example, pain associated with different iatrogenic dental procedures (after restorative and prosthetic treatments), dental caries, leaking dental fillings, and tooth fractures from stressful occlusion from different functional forces. The etiology of dental hypersensitivity, thus, depends on partial or total loss of enamel, e.g., from attrition, abrasion, or erosive processes and their combinations. Anthropologists, in contrast to the dental professionals, consider tooth wear as a normal physiological phenomenon with clear evidence of abrasion and attrition. Basic interactions between attrition (wear due to tooth to tooth friction), abrasion (wear between teeth and different materials), and erosion (dissolution of apatite structure by acidic) have been thoroughly described and tooth wear processes may, therefore, be implicated in the development of DHS [10, 11, 12]. DHS mostly affect subjects with permanent teeth. Although canines and premolars are the most frequented teeth with DHS, any tooth or tooth surfaces may show hypersensitivity. The prevalence of DHS presents a wide range from a few percentages to almost a 100 % due to differences in the populations studied and the methods of investigations used. Almost all patients undergoing periodontal surgery and therapy present with sensitive teeth. It must, however, be pointed out that dental hypersensitivity is a most subjective phenomena. A number of factors, efficacy in clinical studies, relationship between investigator and subject, behavior of pain history and response, placebo effect, etc. may bias such evaluations [13].

Material and methods

Literature search strategy included original scientific papers from clinical trials listed in PubMed, Medline from 2000 to October 2011 in this review. Reviews and original papers before 2000 were included covering subjects associated to the outcome of the main search. The following search terms were used: human, tooth, clinical trial, fluoride, prevention, demineralization, remineralization, exposed dentin, dentine, sensitivity, hypersensitivity, root caries, toothpaste, dentifrice, rinsing solution, fluoride gel, fluoride varnish, laser treatment, fluoride chewing gum, fluoride tablets, fluoride toothpicks, and fluoride flossing. Additional relevant information was collected from dental textbooks, scientific papers and reviews, Internet websites, and national guidelines and recommendations.


Fluoride management strategies to prevent and control DHS

It is important to point out that the saliva/biofilm, the acquired pellicle on the tooth surface, confers a major protective function against tooth wear due to its lubricant function and its major role in promoting remineralization reducing the amount of mineral loss in tooth wear processes. The natural desensitization process, although slow, is nature's protection, allowing dentinal sclerosis through secondary dentin formation. Different desensitizers and fluoride measures also show various potential abilities to promote partially or total obstruction of dentin tubules and reduce DHS and tooth wear [14, 15]. The concept of tubule occlusion as a method of reducing DHS is a logical conclusion from the hydrodynamic hypothesis. This event may occur naturally through normal remineralization and sclerotic processes on the dentin surface by the normal saliva content and function. Therapeutic interventions include direct sealing of the tubules by dentin bonding agents and derivates, use of depolarizing agents or different fluoride measures ranging from toothpaste, fluoride rinsing solutions, professional application with fluoride varnish and fluoride gel application in trays, or fluoride rinsing solutions. The principal mechanism of fluoride to relieve DHS is its chemical ability to reduce and block fluid movements in the dentin tubules through formation of calcium–phosphorous precipitates as well as calcium fluoride (CaF2) and fluorapatite (FAp) [8, 16, 17].

The Canadian Advisory Board on Dentin Hypersensitivity presented consensus-based recommendations in 2003 for the diagnosis and management of DHS [7]. The main management recommendations, among others, from the report was that following identification and removal of predisposing factors and causes of DHS, twice a day use of desensitizing fluoride toothpaste should be considered and recommended as a noninvasive first line of treatment. Orchardson and Gilliam in 2006 [18] published later an extensive review of at home-based and in-office preventive treatment alternatives to reduce DHS. In short, desensitizing treatments should be delivered systematically, beginning with prevention and at-home treatments with fluoride toothpaste and supplemented with in-office modalities as required.

Early studies with fluorides in toothpaste have shown a relative modest effect on DHS, since fluoride ions themselves do not contribute to dentine tubule occlusion. The availability and chemical access of calcium and phosphorous and proteins in saliva are more likely the source of apparent desensitizing effects. Also, some metal ions (e.g., zinc, tin, strontium, and potassium) are believed to actively affect the hydrodynamic mechanism as well as the abrasive components in toothpaste such as alumina, silica, calcium carbonate, etc. that may contribute to partial or complete obstruction of the dentine tubules. Different toothpastes with potassium salts (nitrate, chlorine, and citrate) with varying fluoride concentrations (1,100–1,500 ppm F) and different fluoride salts (NaF, MFP, AmF, and SnF2) have been tested and found to control DHS. F-toothpaste with 0.454 % SnF2 has been reported to be even more effective in reducing DHS after 4 weeks of daily use when compared to toothpaste with 0.76 % MFP [17, 19, 20]. He et al. [21] found significantly better immediate and ongoing sensitivity relief from a 0.45 % SnF2 toothpaste compared to a 0.76 % sodium monofluorophosphate (MFP) toothpaste utilized as a negative control group. Other recent clinical studies have shown that a fluoride toothpaste with 1,450 ppm F as MFP combined with tubule occluding agents such as 8 % argine and calcium carbonate (Pro-Argin Technology) offers significantly increased immediate and lasting relief of dentin sensitivity in addition to being available in whitening and nonwhitening preparations [22, 23, 24, 25, 26]. Other attempts to reduce DHS with toothpaste containing, for example, potassium nitrate or oxalates, are given contradictionary results. In systematic reviews, Cunha-Cruz et al. [27] and Poulsen et al. [28] reported no evidence to support neither the efficacy of potassium nitrate toothpaste nor the benefit of treating DHS with oxalates with the possible exception of 3 % monohydrogen monopotassium oxalate that was demonstrated to be desensitizing beyond a placebo effect. Recently, Gendreaue et al. (2011) [29] reported, in an overview, clinical evidence for the use of NovaMin, an anhydrous toothpaste with amorphous sodium calcium phosphosilicate as providing relief from the pain of DHS. These results indicate that fluoride itself may not be necessary to control tooth hypersensitivity.

Few recent clinical studies seem to have been published with fluoride gel and mouth rinsing with regards to DHS. Aranha et al. [30] compared acidulated phosphate gel application to reduce DHS and found an efficacy similar to other potential agents (Gluma Desensitizer, Seal & Protect, Oxa Gel, and Low-level Laser). An immediate effect was observed after the use of Gluma Desensitizer and Seal & Protect, and the sensitivity level was kept the same until the end of the study. Regarding irradiation with Low-level Laser, the effectiveness was not immediate, but the sensitivity level dropped in the first week of evaluation, remaining constant until the end of the study. The desensitizer agents Oxa Gel and APF gel showed effects as of the first and third months, respectively. The use of sodium fluoride gel was found to reduce the intensity of tooth sensitivity and a 0.1 % fluoride gel combined with 5 % potassium nitrate was applied to trays associated with overnight vital bleaching and found to reduce DHS in a majority of patients, allowing most of the patients to continue bleaching to completion. Also, the use of 1.23 % sodium fluoride after bleaching regimens does not seem to affect the bleaching efficacy of carbamide peroxide [31, 32]. Further Ipci et al. (2009) [33] concluded that NaF gel in combination with laser treatment demonstrated better efficacy compared to either treatment modality alone. Presently, the effect of laser treatment is not clearly demonstrated and more basic and clinical research will be necessary.

Pereira and Chava [34] found a therapeutic effect when rinsing with a 3 % potassium nitrate/0.2 % sodium fluoride solution to alleviate DHS. However, a true control solution without fluoride was not evaluated in the study. A substantial reduction of DHS was reported by Petersson et al. [35] as a positive side effect of twice daily rinsing with an amine and potassium fluoride solution (250 ppm F) compared to a placebo solution during 12 months to control root caries progression. A fluoride-containing mouth rinse product for the treatment of DHS was found to be somewhat better compared to a placebo solution by Yates et al. [36]. However, there was no clear statistically significant difference between test and placebo solutions indicating the importance of the placebo effect in clinical trials utilizing the outcome measure of pain release [13].

Professional fluoride varnish treatment has been used rather extensively to reduce DHS with a significant and immediate pain relief effect lasting for several weeks [37, 38, 39]. The unique property of dental varnishes to remain on tooth surfaces for hours create excellent possibilities for the varnish base to penetrate deep into dentine tubules and obstruct tubule fluid movements and release high concentrations of fluoride ions forming Fap and CaF2 for a considerable time [40, 41]. In a double-blind controlled, split mouth 8-week limited clinical study, no significant difference between different fluoride varnishes at reducing DHS was found. The hypersensitivity reduction occurred immediately after the first application and persisted during the 8-week follow-up [42]. Fluoride varnish may also reduce and prevent dentin dehydration prior to bleaching treatment, since it has been shown that glycerine-based bleaching products may dehydrate fluid in dentin tubules causing dentin hypersensitivity. Clinical evaluation has also been performed with laser therapy and fluoride varnish to treat cervical DHS, which demonstrated an improved response on teeth with higher degrees of sensitivity. Studies involving Nd:YAG laser, ER:Yag laser, and CO2 laser present a slight clinical advantage over topical medicaments such as fluoride varnish and bonding agents in the treatment of DHS, but more controlled clinical studies are needed to confirm this statement. It is interesting to observe that dentin adhesive systems and desensitizers may prevent root demineralization although hitherto under in situ experimental conditions [43, 44, 45, 46].

The oral health in elderly and the risk for root caries development

Most elderly Europeans will have more natural teeth with a possible increase in oral problems due to dental caries on exposed cervical dentine surfaces. In several industrialized countries, there have been positive trends in the reduction of dental caries in children and reduction of tooth loss among adults, but still dental caries has not been eradicated in children although it has been brought under control in some countries. The burden of oral disease among older people is high and this has a negative effect on their quality of life [47, 48, 49]. Recent data by Johansson et al. [50] conclude that oral health, even among the elderly, have benefited from regular utilization of dental care and preventive measures, thus stressing the future responsibilities for the community, professionals, researchers, and the drug companies to improve conditions for the caries preventive measures for this population.

Exposed cervical dentin increases the risk for development of root caries, since the dentin is less resistant to acid attacks compared to enamel. Dentin and cementum contain comparatively lower volume percentage of apatite mineral and smaller hydroxyapatite (HAp) crystallites. Demineralization of exposed dentin occurs already at pH 6.2–6.4 compared to pH 5.5–5.7 for enamel and acid attacks in the plaque/biofilms cause destructive hard tooth changes being approximately twice as rapid compared to similar processes in enamel [51, 52, 53].

Oral infections and systemic diseases are an emerging problem in elderly people being described by Rautemaa et al. [54]. There are a number of potential medical and oral risk factors and determinants for dental caries in elderly. Fure and Zickert [55] have concluded that significant risk factors for root surfaces are the same as for enamel surfaces, e.g., reduced salivary secretion and buffer capacity, high frequency of carbohydrate intake, high levels of plaque, and cariogenic microorganisms in plaque biofilm and saliva. Both salivary components and flow rate have an important protective role against dental caries through cleaning of the oral soft and hard tissues in the mouth, diluting the acids in the mouth, and being a reservoir of repairing minerals and contributing to an antimicrobial resistance in the biofilm on the tooth surfaces [56, 57]. Thus, it seems obvious that older individuals are at risk for root caries due to partial dentures, caries frequency in combination to lack of dexterity, insufficient saliva properties, cariogenic food and drink intake, shift to cariogenic bacteria in the tooth biofilm, poor oral hygiene, and, not at least, insufficient and ineffective fluoride treatment as pointed out by Gati and Vieira (2008) [58].

The use of fluoride has been considered for decades as being the main cornerstone of caries prevention and control by reducing the rate of demineralization, stopping caries progression, and promoting remineralization and, under certain circumstances, even carious lesion arrest. Additionally, fluoride can interfere with the physiology of oral bacteria in the tooth biofilm, decreasing the acid production and inducing cariogenic bacteria acid intolerance [59, 60].

The efficacy and efficiency of fluoride prevention of caries

Systematic reviews of caries prevention have been extensively been presented by the Swedish Council on Technology Assessment in Health Care ( and the Cochrane Database Syst Rev [61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67]. The main conclusions from these reviews are that the relative caries preventive effects of common fluoride preventive measures are acceptable but that the scientific evidences for many methods are weak and insufficient for children and young adolescents. Of note, the relevant scientific information on the effectiveness of fluoride in adults and elderly is comparatively low or even nonexistent compared to those of children and adolescents.

One systematic review found fluoride to be effective in preventing dental caries among adults while examining the effectiveness of self- and professionally applied fluoride and water fluoridation. Griffin et al. [68] were using a random effects model to estimate the effect size of fluoride for all adults aged 20+ years and for adults aged 40+ years. Among studies publishing any fluoride, self- and professionally applied or water fluoridation showed 29 % reduction for coronal caries and 22 % for carious root surfaces. The prevented fraction for water fluoridation was 27 %. These findings suggest that fluoride prevents caries among adults of all ages. A review of preventive interventions for root caries showed that additional fluoride appears to be a preventive and therapeutic choice for treatment of root caries and that more fluoride seems to be needed for remineralization of root dentin lesions as well as for advanced enamel lesions [69, 70]. Rodrigues et al. [49] recently described the preventive effect on crown and root caries, respectively, and concluded that higher fluoride concentration may be necessary to prevent and control root caries compared to crown caries. However, the overall scientific evidence of fluoride treatment in adults is limited. Mukai et al. [71] found in an experimental in vitro study that a 0.4 % F solution remineralized shallow and deep root surface caries in vitro and Baysan et al. [72] found and demonstrated in a clinical study with 5,000 ppm F toothpaste that it is significantly better at remineralizing primary root caries lesions (PRCLs) than one containing 1,100 ppm F. Ekstrand et al. [73] compared the efficacy between daily use of two toothpastes, one with 5,000 ppm F and the other containing 1,450 ppm F on patients older than 75 years during 8 months. The 5,000 ppm F toothpaste showed significantly better effect in controlling root caries development supporting the hypothesis that higher fluoride concentrations in toothpaste may be beneficial for the control of root caries.

There have been scientific discussions if different fluoride salts or fluoride measures would vary concerning their clinical efficacy to control root caries. Parakevas et al. [74] studied root caries development in patients receiving periodontal therapy and compared solutions containing amine fluoride/stannous fluoride versus sodium fluoride on remineralization of early root caries lesions. They found no significant difference between the two fluoride salts used. Fure and Lingstrom [75] evaluated two different fluoride treatments (Duraphat varnish with 2.23 % F and an 8 % stannous fluoride solution in randomly selected groups with 60 root lesions). Interestingly, no obvious differences were found after 1 year and concluded that frequent topical application with high fluoride concentrations could be a successful treatment for incipient root carious lesions. Further, Petersson et al. (2007) [35] have tested an amine F solution (0.025 % F) twice a day during 1 year against a placebo solution and found significant remineralization of active root caries lesions from the active fluoride solution and additionally, a potential reduction of DHS.

Caries prevention with fluoride and health care economics

A number of different economic assessments (e.g., cost–benefit, cost effectiveness analyses, etc.) have been applied in the dental health care sector in order to meet an increased demand for efficient and alternative preventive treatments [76, 77]. A systematic review by Källestål et al. [78] of economic evaluations of caries prevention showed that studies do not provide support for any significant economic value of many caries preventive measures. The reviewed fluoride studies show that results for fluoride varnish treatment and fluoride rinsing are low to moderate in effectiveness and for other fluoride measures, there are not enough scientific evidence data available. The effectiveness of fluoride toothpaste shows, as expected, results with high evidence values. Splieth and Flessa [79], in a lifelong cost model of caries, have demonstrated that the use of fluorides in caries prevention is highly cost effective. Their conclusions were that a number of dental health parameters represent measures of quantifiable values that include improved quality of life, less time spent for dental treatment, and additionally, reduced chances of clinical complications.

A recent National Guideline report to further analyze and judge the different caries preventive methods for adults from a health economic point of view has been presented by the National Board of Health and Welfare (Sweden). These guidelines serve as a support for those who make decisions concerning the allocation of resources within health and medical care and social services. The goal of these guidelines is to contribute towards patients and clients receiving a high standard of medical care and social services in a transparent process of independent experts (National Guidelines 2011) [80]. The outcome suggests a ranking system alternative from one to ten about dental status and treatment alternatives based on the severity of dental status, effect of the treatment, cost effectiveness ratio, and evidence of the conclusion from the scientific background analyzed in expert groups. Ranking order one to three was suggested to give the highest priority and ranking seven to ten, the lowest. Besides the ranking procedure, treatment alternatives were classified as “not-do” recommendations or recommendation to be used only within research programs.

The clinical recommendations with NaF/MFP or amine fluoride toothpaste containing 1,000–1,500 ppm F has a high priority for subjects having risk for root caries, meaning that subjects have a need for intervention to preserve his/her oral health and or prevent further root caries development. In comparison, stannous fluoride toothpaste (1,000–1,500 ppm F) has received a low ranking; therefore, it is suggested not to be used. The main reason for this is higher cost and also the problem that it causes discolorations on teeth. The clinical use of F-toothpicks and F-dental floss is further not recommended, since their additional preventive effect to regular use of F-toothpaste are insufficiently documented (Table 1).
Table 1

Priority ranking (1–10) of preventive measures and health economic assessment (±HEA). Diagnose: ”Risk for root caries”. Ranking 1–3 = high priority/ranking 4–6 = moderate priority/ranking 7–10 = low priority

Preventive measure

Risk for root caries






1,000–1,500 ppm F/twice a day





1,000–1,500 ppm F/twice a day




F-dental floss/dailya


F fluoride, SnF 2 stannous fluorde

aSeveral times a day

The general recommendation to use fluoride tablets, F-chewing gum, or professional tooth cleaning with F-containing polishing pastes is low in subjects with increased risk for “root caries” (active lesions) (Table 2). Daily fluoride rinsing with 0.025–0.1 % fluoride solution is recommended as for fluoride gel treatment in tray or fluoride varnish two to four times a year to subjects with “increased” risk or those subjects with “initial root caries lesions” with a risk for progression. Fluoride toothpaste with 5,000 ppm F can also be recommended to use for these groups of subjects.
Table 2

Priority ranking (1–10) of different preventive measures and health economic assessment (±HEA). Diagnose: increased risk for root caries (active lesion). Ranking 1–3 = high priority/ranking 4–6 = moderate priority/ranking 7–10 = low priority

Preventive measure

Increased risk-root caries




F-toothpaste (5,000 ppm F)


twice a day





(0.2 %-NaF)



F-rinsing/daily (0.05 % NaF)



F-gel (in tray)/daily



F-varnish/2–4 times a year



Fluoride tablets/dailya


F-chewing gum/dailya


Professional tooth-cleaning with F-paste/every 2nd month



SnF2 gel/4× year



F fluoride, SnF 2 stannousfluoride

aSeveral times


Fluoride prevention and control of tooth hypersensitivity and dentin as well as bleaching hypersensitivity can modestly be realized by using toothpaste with concentration between 1,000 and 1,500 ppm F as NaF, MFP, or AmF. Fluoride and different combinations of agents with occluding properties of the dentin tubules such as metal ions, silica and nitrate, and oxalates may improve this effect. Toothpaste with stannous fluoride show somewhat better effect but show disadvantages with discolorations of teeth. The recent data with fluoride toothpaste plus argine (Pro-Arg Technique) are promising without obvious clinical disadvantages. However, more controlled studies are required to make fair comparison with so-called normal fluoridated toothpaste. The clinical use of fluoride as mouth rinsing, fluoride in gels and, not at least, fluoride varnishes show comparatively acceptable efficacy to control DHS compared to other measures. The combination of fluoride with laser technology is promising to control tooth hypersensitivity. Laser research must be intensified and show promising results in order to become accepted as a method to control tooth hypersensitivity.

The development of root caries is increasing in the elderly. The regular use of fluoride is of great importance to prevent and to control root caries but there seems to be a need to use higher fluoride concentration at higher risk. Thus, subjects with “risk” for root caries should be recommended to use fluoride toothpaste with concentrations between 1,000 and 1,500 ppm F as NaF, MFP, or AmF. For subjects at “high risk” with active root caries lesions and with risk for lesion progression, fluoride toothpaste containing 5,000 ppm F, frequent fluoride mouth rinsing with 0.025–0.1 % fluoride solution, and topical application of fluoride varnish two to four times a year or the use of fluoride gel in trays can be recommended from a health care economic judgment. Other common fluoride regimens may be questioned because of their low efficacy and clinical disadvantages based on health economic evaluations. Continuous follow-up of clinical recommendations of different preventive fluoride measurement strategies are necessary and should be evidence based.


Conflict of interest



  1. 1.
    Gysi A (1900) An attempt to explain the sensitiveness of dentine. Br J Dent Res 43:865–868Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brannstrom M (1963) Dentin sensitivity and aspiration of odontoblasts. J Am Dent Assoc 66:366–370PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brannstrom M, Astrom A (1972) The hydrodynamics of the dentine; its possible relationship to dentinal pain. Int Dent J 22(2):219–227PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Markowitz K, Pashley DH (2008) Discovering new treatments for sensitive teeth: the long path from biology to therapy. J Oral Rehabil 35(4):300–315. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2007.01798.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ganss C (2006) Definition of erosion and links to tooth wear. Monogr Oral Sci 20:9–16. doi: 10.1159/000093344 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Haywood VB (2005) Treating sensitivity during tooth whitening. Compend Contin Educ Dent 26(9 Suppl 3):11–20PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Canadian Advisory Board on Dentin Hypersensitivity (2003) Consensus-based recommendations for the diagnosis and management of dentin hypersensitivity. J Can Dent Assoc 69(4):221–226Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brodowski D, Imfeld T (2003) Dentin hypersensitivity—a review. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed 113(1):49–58PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Absi EG, Addy M, Adams D (1987) Dentine hypersensitivity. A study of the patency of dentinal tubules in sensitive and non-sensitive cervical dentine. J Clin Periodontol 14(5):280–284PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Addy M (2006) Tooth brushing, tooth wear and dentine hypersensitivity—are they associated? J Ir Dent Assoc 51(5):226–231PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Addy M, Shellis RP (2006) Interaction between attrition, abrasion and erosion in tooth wear. Monogr Oral Sci 20:17–31. doi: 10.1159/000093348 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Barbour ME, Rees GD (2006) The role of erosion, abrasion and attrition in tooth wear. J Clin Dent 17(4):88–93PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Addy M, West NX, Barlow A, Smith S (2007) Dentine hypersensitivity: is there both stimulus and placebo responses in clinical trials? Int J Dent Hyg 5(1):53–59. doi: 10.1111/j.1601-5037.2007.00228.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bekes K, Schmelz M, Schaller HG, Gernhardt CR (2009) The influence of application of different desensitisers on root dentine demineralisation in situ. Int Dent J 59(3):121–126PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Betke H, Kahler E, Reitz A, Hartmann G, Lennon A, Attin T (2006) Influence of bleaching agents and desensitizing varnishes on the water content of dentin. Oper Dent 31(5):536–542PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rosing CK, Fiorini T, Liberman DN, Cavagni J (2009) Dentine hypersensitivity: analysis of self-care products. Braz Oral Res 23(Suppl 1):56–63PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ling TY, Gillam DG (1996) The effectiveness of desensitizing agents for the treatment of cervical dentine sensitivity (CDS)—a review. J West Soc Periodontol Periodontal Abstr 44(1):5–12PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Orchardson R, Gillam DG (2006) Managing dentin hypersensitivity. J Am Dent Assoc 137(7):990–998PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Charig AJ, Thong S, Flores F, Gupta S, Major E, Winston AE (2009) Mechanism of action of a desensitizing fluoride toothpaste delivering calcium and phosphate ingredients in the treatment of dental hypersensitivity. Part II: comparison with a professional treatment for tooth hypersensitivity. Compend Contin Educ Dent 30(9):622–624, 626, 628 passimPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schiff T, Bonta Y, Proskin HM, DeVizio W, Petrone M, Volpe AR (2000) Desensitizing efficacy of a new dentifrice containing 5.0 % potassium nitrate and 0.454 % stannous fluoride. Am J Dent 13(3):111–115PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    He T, Barker ML, Qaqish J, Sharma N (2011) Fast onset sensitivity relief of a 0.454 % stannous fluoride dentifrice. J Clin Dent 22(2):46–50PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cummins D (2010) Recent advances in dentin hypersensitivity: clinically proven treatments for instant and lasting sensitivity relief. Am J Dent 23 Spec No A:3A-13AGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Docimo R, Montesani L, Maturo P, Costacurta M, Bartolino M, DeVizio W, Zhang YP, Cummins D, Dibart S, Mateo LR (2009) Comparing the efficacy in reducing dentin hypersensitivity of a new toothpaste containing 8.0 % arginine, calcium carbonate, and 1450 ppm fluoride to a commercial sensitive toothpaste containing 2 % potassium ion: an eight-week clinical study in Rome, Italy. J Clin Dent 20(1):17–22PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Docimo R, Montesani L, Maturo P, Costacurta M, Bartolino M, Zhang YP, DeVizio W, Delgado E, Cummins D, Dibart S, Mateo LR (2009) Comparing the efficacy in reducing dentin hypersensitivity of a new toothpaste containing 8.0 % arginine, calcium carbonate, and 1450 ppm fluoride to a benchmark commercial desensitizing toothpaste containing 2 % potassium ion: an eight-week clinical study in Rome, Italy. J Clin Dent 20(4):137–143PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Fu Y, Li X, Que K, Wang M, Hu D, Mateo LR, DeVizio W, Zhang YP (2010) Instant dentin hypersensitivity relief of a new desensitizing dentifrice containing 8.0 % arginine, a high cleaning calcium carbonate system and 1450 ppm fluoride: a 3-day clinical study in Chengdu, China. Am J Dent 23 Spec No A:20A-27AGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Que K, Fu Y, Lin L, Hu D, Zhang YP, Panagakos FS, DeVizio W, Mateo LR (2010) Dentin hypersensitivity reduction of a new toothpaste containing 8.0 % arginine and 1450 ppm fluoride: an 8-week clinical study on Chinese adults. Am J Dent 23 Spec No A:28A-35AGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Cunha-Cruz J, Stout JR, Heaton LJ, Wataha JC (2011) Dentin hypersensitivity and oxalates: a systematic review. J Dent Res 90(3):304–310. doi: 10.1177/0022034510389179 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Poulsen S, Errboe M, Hovgaard O, Worthington HW (2001) Potassium nitrate toothpaste for dentine hypersensitivity. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (2):CD001476. doi:CD001476  10.1002/14651858.CD001476
  29. 29.
    Gendreau L, Barlow AP, Mason SC (2011) Overview of the clinical evidence for the use of NovaMin in providing relief from the pain of dentin hypersensitivity. J Clin Dent 22(3):90–95PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Aranha AC, Pimenta LA, Marchi GM (2009) Clinical evaluation of desensitizing treatments for cervical dentin hypersensitivity. Braz Oral Res 23(3):333–339PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Armenio RV, Fitarelli F, Armenio MF, Demarco FF, Reis A, Loguercio AD (2008) The effect of fluoride gel use on bleaching sensitivity: a double-blind randomized controlled clinical trial. J Am Dent Assoc 139(5):592–597PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Haywood VB, Caughman WF, Frazier KB, Myers ML (2001) Tray delivery of potassium nitrate-fluoride to reduce bleaching sensitivity. Quintessence Int 32(2):105–109PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ipci SD, Cakar G, Kuru B, Yilmaz S (2009) Clinical evaluation of lasers and sodium fluoride gel in the treatment of dentine hypersensitivity. Photomed Laser Surg 27(1):85–91. doi: 10.1089/pho.2008.2263 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Pereira R, Chava VK (2001) Efficacy of a 3 % potassium nitrate desensitizing mouthwash in the treatment of dentinal hypersensitivity. J Periodontol 72(12):1720–1725. doi: 10.1902/jop.2001.72.12.1720 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Petersson LG, Hakestam U, Baigi A, Lynch E (2007) Remineralization of primary root caries lesions using an amine fluoride rinse and dentifrice twice a day. Am J Dent 20(2):93–96PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Yates RJ, Newcombe RG, Addy M (2004) Dentine hypersensitivity: a randomised, double-blind placebo-controlled study of the efficacy of a fluoride-sensitive teeth mouthrinse. J Clin Periodontol 31(10):885–889. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2004.00581.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Merika K, HeftitArthur F, Preshaw PM (2006) Comparison of two topical treatments for dentine sensitivity. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 14(1):38–41PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ritter AV, de L Dias W, Miguez P, Caplan DJ, Swift EJ Jr (2006) Treating cervical dentin hypersensitivity with fluoride varnish: a randomized clinical study. J Am Dent Assoc 137(7):1013–1020Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Gaffar A (1998) Treating hypersensitivity with fluoride varnishes. Compend Contin Educ Dent 19(11):1088–1090, 1092, 1094 passimPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Arends J, Duschner H, Ruben JL (1997) Penetration of varnishes into demineralized root dentine in vitro. Caries Res 31(3):201–205PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Cruz R, Ogaard B, Rolla G (1992) Uptake of KOH-soluble and KOH-insoluble fluoride in sound human enamel after topical application of a fluoride varnish (Duraphat) or a neutral 2 % NaF solution in vitro. Scand J Dent Res 100(3):154–158PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Hoang-Dao BT, Hoang-Tu H, Tran-Thi NN, Koubi G, Camps J, About I (2009) Clinical efficiency of a natural resin fluoride varnish (Shellac F) in reducing dentin hypersensitivity. J Oral Rehabil 36(2):124–131. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2008.01907.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Cunha-Cruz J (2011) Laser therapy for dentine hypersensitivity. Evid Based Dent 12(3):74–75. doi: 10.1038/sj.ebd.6400807 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Yilmaz HG, Kurtulmus-Yilmaz S, Cengiz E (2011) Long-term effect of diode laser irradiation compared to sodium fluoride varnish in the treatment of dentine hypersensitivity in periodontal maintenance patients: a randomized controlled clinical study. Photomed Laser Surg 29(11):721–725. doi: 10.1089/pho.2010.2974 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Kara C, Orbak R (2009) Comparative evaluation of Nd:YAG laser and fluoride varnish for the treatment of dentinal hypersensitivity. J Endod 35(7):971–974. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2009.04.004 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Corona SA, Nascimento TN, Catirse AB, Lizarelli RF, Dinelli W, Palma-Dibb RG (2003) Clinical evaluation of low-level laser therapy and fluoride varnish for treating cervical dentinal hypersensitivity. J Oral Rehabil 30(12):1183–1189PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Petersen PE, Bourgeois D, Ogawa H, Estupinan-Day S, Ndiaye C (2005) The global burden of oral diseases and risks to oral health. Bull World Health Organ 83(9):661–669PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Petersen PE, Yamamoto T (2005) Improving the oral health of older people: the approach of the WHO Global Oral Health Programme. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 33(2):81–92PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Rodrigues JA, Lussi A, Seemann R (2000) Neuhaus KW (2011) Prevention of crown and root caries in adults. Periodontol 55(1):231–249. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0757.2010.00381.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Johansson V, Axtelius B, Soderfeldt B, Sampogna F, Paulander J, Sondell K (2010) Multivariate analyses of patient financial systems and oral health-related quality of life. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 38(5):436–444. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0528.2010.00546.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Featherstone JD (2004) The caries balance: the basis for caries management by risk assessment. Oral Health Prev Dent 2(Suppl 1):259–264PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Featherstone JD (2009) Remineralization, the natural caries repair process—the need for new approaches. Adv Dent Res 21(1):4–7. doi: 10.1177/0895937409335590 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    ten Cate JM, Exterkate RA, Buijs MJ (2006) The relative efficacy of fluoride toothpastes assessed with pH cycling. Caries Res 40(2):136–141. doi: 10.1159/000091060 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Rautemaa R, Lauhio A, Cullinan MP, Seymour GJ (2007) Oral infections and systemic disease—an emerging problem in medicine. Clin Microbiol Infect 13(11):1041–1047. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-0691.2007.01802.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Fure S, Zickert I (1990) Root surface caries and associated factors. Scand J Dent Res 98(5):391–400PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Marsh PD, Devine DA (2011) How is the development of dental biofilms influenced by the host? J Clin Periodontol 38(Suppl 11):28–35. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2010.01673.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Roberts AP, Mullany P (2010) Oral biofilms: a reservoir of transferable, bacterial, antimicrobial resistance. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther 8(12):1441–1450. doi: 10.1586/eri.10.106 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Gati D, Vieira AR (2011) Elderly at greater risk for root caries: a look at the multifactorial risks with emphasis on genetics susceptibility. Int J Dent 2011:647168. doi: 10.1155/2011/647168 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    van Loveren C, Hoogenkamp MA, Deng DM, ten Cate JM (2008) Effects of different kinds of fluorides on enolase and ATPase activity of a fluoride-sensitive and fluoride-resistant Streptococcus mutans strain. Caries Res 42(6):429–434. doi: 10.1159/000159606 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Welin-Neilands J, Svensater G (2007) Acid tolerance of biofilm cells of Streptococcus mutans. Appl Environ Microbiol 73(17):5633–5638. doi: 10.1128/AEM.01049-07 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Petersson LG, Twetman S, Dahlgren H, Norlund A, Holm AK, Nordenram G, Lagerlof F, Soder B, Kallestal C, Mejare I, Axelsson S, Lingstrom P (2004) Professional fluoride varnish treatment for caries control: a systematic review of clinical trials. Acta Odontol Scand 62(3):170–176. doi: 10.1080/00016350410006392 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Twetman S, Petersson L, Axelsson S, Dahlgren H, Holm AK, Kallestal C, Lagerlof F, Lingstrom P, Mejare I, Nordenram G, Norlund A, Soder B (2004) Caries-preventive effect of sodium fluoride mouthrinses: a systematic review of controlled clinical trials. Acta Odontol Scand 62(4):223–230. doi: 10.1080/00016350410001658 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Twetman S, Axelsson S, Dahlgren H, Holm AK, Kallestal C, Lagerlof F, Lingstrom P, Mejare I, Nordenram G, Norlund A, Petersson LG, Soder B (2003) Caries-preventive effect of fluoride toothpaste: a systematic review. Acta Odontol Scand 61(6):347–355PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Walsh T, Worthington HV, Glenny AM, Appelbe P, Marinho VC, Shi X (2010) Fluoride toothpastes of different concentrations for preventing dental caries in children and adolescents. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (1):CD007868. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007868.pub2
  65. 65.
    Marinho VC (2009) Cochrane reviews of randomized trials of fluoride therapies for preventing dental caries. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 10(3):183–191PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Marinho VC, Higgins JP, Sheiham A, Logan S (2004) Combinations of topical fluoride (toothpastes, mouthrinses, gels, varnishes) versus single topical fluoride for preventing dental caries in children and adolescents. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (1):CD002781. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002781.pub2
  67. 67.
    Marinho VC, Higgins JP, Logan S, Sheiham A (2003) Topical fluoride (toothpastes, mouthrinses, gels or varnishes) for preventing dental caries in children and adolescents. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (4):CD002782. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002782
  68. 68.
    Griffin SO, Regnier E, Griffin PM, Huntley V (2007) Effectiveness of fluoride in preventing caries in adults. J Dent Res 86(5):410–415PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    ten Cate JM, Buijs MJ, Miller CC, Exterkate RA (2008) Elevated fluoride products enhance remineralization of advanced enamel lesions. J Dent Res 87(10):943–947PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Heijnsbroek M, Paraskevas S, Van der Weijden GA (2007) Fluoride interventions for root caries: a review. Oral Health Prev Dent 5(2):145–152PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Mukai Y, Lagerweij MD, ten Cate JM (2001) Effect of a solution with high fluoride concentration on remineralization of shallow and deep root surface caries in vitro. Caries Res 35(5):317–324PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Baysan A, Lynch E, Ellwood R, Davies R, Petersson L, Borsboom P (2001) Reversal of primary root caries using dentifrices containing 5,000 and 1,100 ppm fluoride. Caries Res 35(1):41–46PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Ekstrand K, Martignon S, Holm-Pedersen P (2008) Development and evaluation of two root caries controlling programmes for home-based frail people older than 75 years. Gerodontology 25(2):67–75. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-2358.2007.00200.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Paraskevas S, Danser MM, Timmerman MF, van der Velden U, van der Weijden GA (2004) Amine fluoride/stannous fluoride and incidence of root caries in periodontal maintenance patients. A 2 year evaluation. J Clin Periodontol 31 (11):965-971. doi:CPE593  10.1111/j.1600-051x.2004.00593.x Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Fure S, Lingstrom P (2009) Evaluation of different fluoride treatments of initial root carious lesions in vivo. Oral Health Prev Dent 7(2):147–154PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Feine J, Jamal N, Esfandiari S (2008) Preventing dental caries. What are the costs. In: Dental caries. The disease and its clinical management, 2nd edn. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 543–552Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Ellwein LB, Drummond MF (1996) Economic analysis alongside clinical trials. Bias in the assessment of economic outcomes. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 12(4):691–697PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Kallestal C, Norlund A, Soder B, Nordenram G, Dahlgren H, Petersson LG, Lagerlof F, Axelsson S, Lingstrom P, Mejare I, Holm AK, Twetman S (2003) Economic evaluation of dental caries prevention: a systematic review. Acta Odontol Scand 61(6):341–346PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Splieth CH, Flessa S (2008) Modelling lifelong costs of caries with and without fluoride use. Eur J Oral Sci 116(2):164–169. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0722.2008.00524.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    National Board of Health and Welfare, Sweden (2011) National guidelines.

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2012

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Community Dentistry, Maxillofacial UnitHalland HospitalHalmstadSweden

Personalised recommendations