Lasers in Medical Science

, Volume 30, Issue 2, pp 823–829 | Cite as

Clinical evaluation of low-power laser and a desensitizing agent on dentin hypersensitivity

  • Anely Oliveira Lopes
  • Carlos de Paula Eduardo
  • Ana Cecília Correa AranhaEmail author
Original Article


The aim of this randomized, longitudinal clinical study was to evaluate different protocols for dentin hypersensitivity treatment with low-power laser at different dosages, desensitizing agent, and associations, for a period of 6 months. After analysis of the inclusion and exclusion criteria of volunteer participants, those who present pain resulting from non-carious cervical lesions were selected. Twenty-seven patients participated in the study, and 55 lesions were recorded. The lesions were divided into five groups (n = 11), treated, and evaluated: G1: Gluma Desensitizer (Heraeus); G2: low-power laser (Photon Lase, DMC) at low dose (three vestibular points and one apical point of irradiation: 30 mW, 10 J/cm2, 9 s per point with wavelength of 810 nm), three sessions were performed with an interval of 72 h between them; G3: low-power laser at high dose (application at one cervical and one apical point: 100 mW, 90 J/cm2, 11 s per point with wavelength of 810 nm), three sessions were performed with an interval of 72 h between irradiations; G4: low-power laser at low dose + Gluma Desensitizer; and G5: low-power laser at high dose + Gluma Desensitizer, the level of sensitivity of each volunteer was evaluated with a visual analog scale of pain (VAS) with the use of air from a triple syringe and exploration with a probe after time intervals of 5 min, 1 week, and 1, 3, and 6 months after treatment. Data were collected and subjected to statistical analysis. Kolmogorov–Smirnov test was used to verify the distribution of the data, and nonparametric Kruskal–Wallis and Friedman tests were performed for comparison among the experimental groups and time intervals studied, respectively. Statistically significant differences between the studied time intervals (p < 0.05) were detected. From the difference in pain, it was observed that for both stimuli, the protocol with the Gluma desensitizing agent presented immediate effects of pain reduction. For low-level lasers, it was observed that there were distinct effects for the different doses; however, both were efficient in reducing pain up to the 6 months of clinical follow-up. Therefore, it could be concluded that all the desensitizing protocols were effective in reducing dentin hypersensitivity, but with different effects. The combination of protocols is an interesting alternative in the treatment of cervical dentin hypersensitivity.


Dentin hypersensitivity Desensitizer Laser Non-carious cervical lesion 



The authors would like to thank the Special Laboratory of Lasers in Dentistry at the School of Dentistry of University of São Paulo, FAPESP (2010/13232-9 and 2011/17701-6) and CNPq (307375/2010-2).


  1. 1.
    Orchardson R, Gangarosa LP, Holland GR et al (1994) Dentine hypersensitivity into the 21st century. Arch Oral 39:113–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bartold PM (2006) Dentinal hypersensitivity: a review. Aust Dent J 51(3):212–218PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bartlett DW, Shah P (2006) A critical review of non-carious cervical (wear) lesions and the role of abfraction, erosion, and abrasion. J Dent Res 85(4):306–12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lussi A (2006) Erosive tooth wear—a multifactorial condition of growing concern and increasing knowledge. Monogr Oral Sci 20:1–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Coleman TA, Grippo JO, Kinderknecht KE (2000) Cervical dentin hypersensitivity, part II: associations with abfractive lesions. Quintessence Int 31(7):466–73PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Walters PA (2005) Dentinal hypersensitivity: a review. J Contemp Dent Pract 6(2):107–17PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    West NX (2008) Dentine hypersensitivity: preventive and therapeutic approaches to treatment. Periodontol 2000(48):31–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ladalardo TC, Pinheiro A, Campos RAC et al (2002) Laser therapy in the treatment of dentine hypersensitivity. Braz Dent J 15(2):780–95Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brännström M (1966) Sensitivity of dentine. Oral Surgery 21(4):517–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Orchardson R, Gillam DG (2006) Managing dentin hypersensitivity. JADA 137(7):990–998PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chabanski MB, Gillam DG (1997) Etiology, prevalence and clinical features of cervical dentin sensitivity. J Oral Rehabil 24(1):15–19PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kakaboura A, Rahiotis C, Thomaidis S, Doukoudakis S (2005) Clinical effectiveness of two agents on the treatment of tooth cervical hypersensitivity. Am J Dent 18(4):291–295PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pamir T, Dalgar H, Onal B (2007) Clinical evaluation of three desensitizing agents in relieving dentin hypersensitivity. Oper Dent 32(6):544–548PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Olusile AO, Bamise CT, Oginni AO, Dosumu OO (2008) Short-term clinical evaluation of four desensitizing agents. J Contemp Dent Pract 9(1):22–29PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Aranha ACC, Pimenta LA, Marchi GM (2009) Clinical evaluation of desensitizing treatments for cervical dentin hypersensitivity. Braz Oral Res 23(3):333–339PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Al-Sabbagh M, Brown A, Thomas MV (2009) In-office treatment of dentinal hypersensitivity. Dent Clin North Am 53(1):61–70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Orsini G, Procaccini M, Manzoli L, Giuliodori F, Lorenzini A, Putignano A (2010) A double-blind randomized-controlled trial comparing the desensitizing efficacy of a new dentifrice containing carbonate/hydroxyapatite nanocrystals and a sodium fluoride/potassium nitrate dentifrice. J Clin Periodontol 37(6):510–517PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pradeep AR, Sharma A (2010) Comparison of clinical efficacy of a dentifrice containing calcium sodium phosphosilicate to a dentifrice containing potassium nitrate and to a placebo on dentinal hypersensitivity: a randomized clinical trial. J Periodontol 81(8):1167–1173PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Aranha ACC, Eduardo CP (2011) In vitro effects of Er, Cr:YSGG laser on dentine hypersensitivity. Dentine permeability and scanning electron microscopy analysis. Lasers Med Sci 27:1–8Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Aranha ACC, Eduardo CP (2011) Effects of Er:YAG and Er, Cr:YSGG lasers on dentine hypersensitivity. Short-term clinical evaluation. Lasers Med Sci 13:1–6Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lopes AL, Aranha ACC (2013) Comparative evaluation of the effects of the Nd:YAG laser and a desensitizer agent on the treatment of dentin hypersensitivity. A clinical study. Photomed Laser Surg 31(3):132–138PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kerns DG, Scheidt MJ, Pashley DH, Horner AJ, Strong SL, Van Dyke TE (1991) Dentinal tubule occlusion and root hypersensitivity. J Periodontol 62(7):421–428PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Panduric V, Kneževic A, Tarle Z, Šutalo J (2001) The efficiency of dentine adhesives in treating non-caries cervical lesions. J Oral Rehabil 28(12):1168–1174PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Grossman LI (1935) A systematic method for the treatment of hypersensitive dentin. J Am Dent Assoc 22:592–602Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Shiau HJ (2012) Dentin hypersensitivity. J Evid Based Dent Pract 12(3 Suppl):220–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Dondidall’Orologio G, Lone A, Finger WJ (2002) Clinical evaluation of the role of glutaraldehyde in a one-bottle adhesive. Am J Dent 15(5):330–334Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Qin C, Xu J, Zhang Y (2006) Spectroscopic investigation of the function of aqueous 2-hydroxyethylmethacrylate/glutaraldehyde solution as a dentin desensitizer. Eur J Oral Sci 114(4):354–359PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Schüpbach P, Lutz F, Finger W (1997) Closing of dentinal tubules by Gluma desensitizer. Eur J Oral Sci 105(5):414–421PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Marsilio AL, Rodrigues JR, Borges AB (2003) Effect of the clinical application of the GaAlAs laser in the treatment of dentine hypersensitivity. J Clin Laser Med Surg 21(5):291–296PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ladalardo TC, Pinheiro A, Campos RA, Brugnera Júnior A, Zanin F, Albernaz PL, Weckx LL (2004) Laser therapy in the treatment of dentine hypersensitivity. Braz Dent J 15(2):144–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Dilsiz A, Aydn T, Emrem G (2010) Effects of the combined desensitizing dentifrice and diode laser therapy in the treatment of desensitization of teeth with gingival recession. Photomed Laser Surg 28(2):69–74Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Tate Y, Yoshiba K, Yoshiba N, Iwaku M, Okiji T, Ohshima H (2006) Odontoblast responses to GaAlAs laser irradiation in rat molars: an experimental study using heatshock protein-25 immunohistochemistry. Eur J Oral Sci 114(1):50–57PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Tengrungsun T, Sangkla W (2008) Comparative study in desensitizing efficacy using the GaAlAs laser and dentin bonding agent. J Dent 36(6):392–395PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Midda M, Renton-Harper P (1991) Lasers in dentistry. Br Dent J 120(9):343–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Gerschman JA, Ruben J, Gebart-Eaglemont J (1994) Low level laser therapy for dentinal tooth hypersensitivity. Aust Dent J 39(6):353–357PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Wakabayashi H, Hamba M, Matsumoto K, Tachibana H (1993) Effect of irradiation by semiconductor laser on responses evoked in trigeminal caudal neurons by tooth pulp stimulation. Lasers Surg Med 13(6):605–610PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Godoy BM, Arana-Chavez VE, Núñez SC, Ribeiro MS (2007) Effects of low-power red laser on dentine-pulp interface after cavity preparation. An ultrastructural study. Arch Oral Biol 52(9):899–903PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ferreira ANS, Silveira L Jr, Genovese WJ (2006) Effect of GaAIAs laser on reactionaldentinogenesis induction in human teeth. Photomed Laser Surgery 24:358–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Smith AJ (2002) Dentin formation and repair. Quintessence Publishing Co., Chicago, pp 41–62Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Vieira AHM, Passos VF, De Assis JS, Mendonça JS, Santiago SL (2009) Clinical evaluation of a 3% potassium oxalate gel and a GaAlAs laser for the treatment of dentinal hypersensitivity. Photomed Laser Surg 27(5):807–812PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anely Oliveira Lopes
    • 1
  • Carlos de Paula Eduardo
    • 1
  • Ana Cecília Correa Aranha
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Special Laboratory of Lasers (LELO), Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of DentistryUniversity of São PauloSão PauloBrazil

Personalised recommendations