Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29330655›Full record

SynthesisClinical oral investigations2018

Effectiveness for dentin hypersensitivity treatment of non-carious cervical lesions: a meta-analysis.

Vittorio Moraschini, Larissa Salina da Costa, Gustavo Oliveira Dos Santos

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Clinical oral investigations, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
7.1field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 93 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Stereomicroscopic Aspects of Non-Carious Cervical Lesions.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Vittorio MoraschiniSchool of Dentistry, Department of Periodontology, Fluminense Federal University, Rua Mario dos Santos Braga, 30, Centro, Niterói, Rio de Janeiro, CEP 24020-140, Brazil. vittoriomf@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5739-394X
Larissa Salina da CostaSchool of Dentistry, Department of Integrated Clinic, Fluminense Federal University, Rua Mario dos Santos Braga, 30, Centro, Niterói, Rio de Janeiro, CEP 24020-140, Brazil.
Gustavo Oliveira Dos SantosSchool of Dentistry, Department of Integrated Clinic, Fluminense Federal University, Rua Mario dos Santos Braga, 30, Centro, Niterói, Rio de Janeiro, CEP 24020-140, Brazil.
Universidade Federal Fluminense · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe aim of this review is to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the effectiveness of in-home or in-office treatments for dentin hypersensitivity. MATERIALS AND

methodsAn electronic search without restriction on dates or languages was performed in four electronic databases until March 2017. In addition, hand-searches in regular journals and in the gray literature were also conducted. To develop the search strategy, clinical questions were formulated using the PICOS method. Eligibility criteria included randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that compared the effectiveness of different agents for the treatment of dentin hypersensitivity through chemical occlusion, physical occlusion, nerve desensitization, or photobiomodulation (low-level light therapy). This systematic review was registered in PROSPERO under number CRD42016039394.

resultsTwenty-five RCTs (16 parallel; 9 split-mouth), published from 1992 to 2016, were included. The results of the meta-analysis showed that in-office subgroups treated with chemical or physical occlusion of dentin tubules and nerve desensitization had a statistically significant difference from placebo, with P < 0.00001, P < 0.00001, and P = 0.02, respectively. For in-home treatments, the results of the meta-analysis showed that only those subgroups treated with chemical occlusion of dentin tubules and nerve desensitization exhibited a statistically significant difference from placebo, with P < 0.00001 and P = 0.03, respectively.

conclusionsThe results of pairwise meta-analysis suggest that among in-office treatments, dentinal tubule occlusion (whether chemical or physical) and nerve desensitization provide the best outcomes for treatment of dentin hypersensitivity. For in-home treatments, only chemical occlusion of dentin tubules and nerve desensitization showed a greater treatment efficacy than placebo and the difference was statistically significant.

Indexed as

Dentin Desensitizing AgentsDentin SensitivityHumansLow-Level Light TherapyTooth DemineralizationDentin Desensitizing AgentsDentin desensitizing agentDentin hypersensitivityEvidence-based dentistryMeta-analysis

Identifiers

PMID29330655
OpenAlexW2784244475

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.