ArticleOpen access Macedonian journal of medical sciences2019
Evaluation and Comparison of Efficacy of Gluma
Article in Open access Macedonian journal of medical sciences, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- A randomized clinical trial of dentin hypersensitivity reduction over one month after a single topical application of comparable materials.Scientific reports · 2021Trial
- Effect of silver diamine fluoride, potassium nitrate, and glutaraldehyde in reducing the post vital tooth preparation hypersensitivity: A randomized controlled trial.Journal of Indian Prosthodontic SocietyTrial
- Evaluation of Gluma® and MI Varnish™ for In-Office Treatment of Dentinal Hypersensitivity: An Observational Study.Cureus · 2024Article
- Efficacy and Durability of Two Desensitizing Agents on Dentinal Tubule Occlusion: An In Vitro Study.Cureus · 2024Article
- Evaluation of the Effects of 810 nm Diode Laser Alone and in Combination With GlumaJournal of lasers in medical sciences · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDentinal hypersensitivity is one of the most common sequels of non-surgical periodontal therapy. Resulted discomfort may restrain patients from oral hygiene maintenance, thus affects the long-term success of periodontal therapy. So, it becomes a prime concern of the clinician to manage the post-operative hypersensitivity.
aimThis clinical investigation aimed to evaluate and compare the efficacy of D/Sense MATERIAL AND
methodsThe present randomised, double-blind, split-mouth study was conducted on forty-five (22 male, 23 female) systemically healthy patients, with the mean age of 40 ± 17.5 years. Visual Analogue scale was used to evaluate root sensitivity after application of tactile and cold stimuli at baseline, 1, 2, 4 and 6 weeks after scaling and root planing. After scaling and root planning, the sites were randomly divided into different groups for the application of desensitising agents. Collected data were analysed by using, analysis of variance (ANOVA) for inter-group and paired t-test for intra-group comparisons.
resultsNo adverse or side effects were reported by any of the patients throughout the study period. Gluma
conclusionThe result of the present investigation revealed that application of Gluma® resulted in better control on iatrogenic root hypersensitivity as compared to the D/Sense
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.