Fluoride varnish versus glutaraldehyde for hypersensitive teeth: a randomized controlled trial, meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis
Reports indicate Gluma and Duraphat are commonly used in-office agents to treat hypersensitive teeth. Considering this, the aim of this paper is to compare Gluma and Duraphat using a randomized controlled trial, meta-analysis collating evidences from previous studies and trial sequential analysis.
Materials and methods
Thirty-eight participants were randomized. Hypersensitivity and visual analog scale (VAS) scores were recorded at baseline, 5 min and 7 days. Oral health-related quality of life (OHIP) questionnaire was administered at baseline and 7 days. Statistical analysis was performed to identify significant differences between the variables. For the meta-analysis, electronic data bases were searched and eligible data was extracted and analysed using RevMan 5.0. Trial sequential analysis was performed using O’Brien-Fleming boundary approach for the primary outcome.
Both agents caused significant reduction in hypersensitivity and VAS score at 5 min and 7 days in the randomized trial with no superiority. The quality of life significantly improved in patients treated with both the agents. Four studies including the present trial in meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis indicated that Gluma produced significant reduction in VAS scores at 7 days.
Gluma produces significant reduction in hypersensitivity at 7 days post treatment compared with Duraphat. There is definite lack of evidence on the long-term effect of these agents.
This paper provides strong evidence on the use of Gluma for hypersensitive teeth. This also is a way forward to future research on long-term effects, adverse effects and cost-effectiveness studies.
KeywordsSensitive teeth Pain Pain rating scale Quality of life
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 3.Cartwright RB (2014) Dentinal hypersensitivity: a narrative review. Community Dent Health 31(1):15–20 ReviewGoogle Scholar
- 6.Kopycka-Kedzierawski DT, Meyerowitz C, Litaker MS, Chonowski S, Heft MW, Gordan VV, Yardic RL, Madden TE, Reyes SC, Gilbert GH, National Dental PBRN Collaborative Group (2017) Management of Dentin Hypersensitivity by National Dental Practice-Based Research Network practitioners: results from a questionnaire administered prior to initiation of a clinical study on this topic. BMC Oral Health 17(1):41. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-017-0334-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.Kopycka-Kedzierawski DT, Meyerowitz C, Litaker MS, Heft MW, Tasgaonkar N, Day MR, Porter-Williams A, Gordan VV, Yardic RL, Lawhorn TM, Gilbert GH, National Dental PBRN Collaborative Group (2017) Management of dentin hypersensitivity by practitioners in the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network. J Am Dent Assoc 148(10):728–736 Google Scholar
- 12.Olusile AO, Bamise CT, Oginni AO, Dosumu OO (2008) Short-term clinical evaluation of four desensitizing agents. J Contemp Dent Pract 9(1):22–29Google Scholar
- 13.Mehmood Z, Shah JA, Javed MU, Manzoor MA, Asghar I, Saeed MH (2011) Efficacy of Gluma desensitizer™ and Duraphat™ in relieving dentinal hypersensivity in non-carious cervical lesions. Pak Oral Dental J 31(1):183Google Scholar
- 14.General Assembly of the World Medical Association (2014) World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. J Am Coll Dent 81(3):14–18Google Scholar
- 15.Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, Montori V, Gøtzsche PC, Devereaux PJ, Elbourne D, Egger M, Altman DG, CONSORT (2012) CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. Int J Surg 10(1):28–55Google Scholar
- 16.Canadian Advisory Board on Dentin Hypersensitivity (2003) Consensus-based recommendations for the diagnosis and management of dentin hypersensitivity. J Can Dent Assoc 69(4):221–226 ReviewGoogle Scholar
- 19.Higgins JPT, Green S (eds) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. 5.1.0 edition. Available from http://www.cochranehandbook.org/. Accessed 28 Sep 2017
- 26.Lima TC, Vieira-Barbosa NM, Grasielle de Sá Azevedo C, de Matos FR, Douglas de Oliveira DW, de Oliveira ES, Ramos-Jorge ML, Gonçalves PF, Flecha OD (2017) Oral health-related quality of life before and after treatment of dentin hypersensitivity with cyanoacrylate and laser. J Periodontol 88(2):166–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar