Fluoride varnish versus glutaraldehyde for hypersensitive teeth: a randomized controlled trial, meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

objectiveReports 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

methodsThirty-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.

resultsBoth 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.

conclusionGluma 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. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: 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.