Treating dentin hypersensitivity of noncarious lesions with chemical occlusion, physical occlusion, and nerve desensitization probably reduces pain, but there is not sufficient evidence to determine which agent is better.

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.

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.

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Advances in physical and chemical strategies for dentin hypersensitivity therapy.Journal of advanced research · 2026
   Review
2. Development of an Innovative Strontium Gel for Enhanced Antisensitivity, Long-Lasting Film Formation, and Sustained Release of Active Ingredients on Oral Tissues.ACS omega · 2026
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  Effectiveness for dentin hypersensitivity treatment of non-carious cervical lesions: a meta-analysis.2018

Authors and funding

1 author.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as