Trial reportClinical oral investigations2020
Efficiency of desensitizing materials in xerostomic patients with head and neck cancer: a comparative clinical study.
Trial report in Clinical oral investigations, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Consequences of hyposalivation in relation to cancer treatment and early management of radiation-induced caries: case reports.British dental journal · 2024Article
- Effectiveness of Calcium Phosphate Desensitising Agents in Dental Hypersensitivity Over 24 Weeks of Clinical Evaluation.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the clinical effectiveness of four desensitizing materials in patients who are xerostomic due to radiotherapy for head and neck cancer (HNC) in comparison to a healthy group with normal salivation. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The study was conducted as a split-mouth randomized clinical trial. Forty HNC patients (group A) and 46 healthy patients (group B) suffering from dentin hypersensitivity (DH) were included. Salivary flow was determined through a scialometric test. Hypersensitivity was assessed with air stimulus and tactile stimulus. The materials used as desensitizing agents were Vertise Flow, Universal Dentin Sealant, Clearfil Protect Bond, and Flor-Opal Varnish. The response was recorded before application of the materials, immediately after, and at 1 week, 4 weeks, and 12 weeks.
resultsSalivary flow rates in groups A/B were 0.15/0.53 mL/min (unstimulated) and 0.54/1.27 mL/min (stimulated), respectively. In group A, 100 hypersensitive teeth were included. Application of the desensitizing agents significantly decreased the hypersensitivity immediately and throughout the 4-week follow-up (p < 0.001). However, after the 12-week timepoint, a loss of efficacy was detected in all agents (p = 0.131). In group B, 116 hypersensitive teeth were included. The materials performed a more stable action, although a loss of effectiveness was detected at 12-week control (p = 0.297).
conclusionThe efficiency of the desensitizing agents after the first application was similar in both groups. In the radiated group, this effect lasted for shorter periods than in healthy controls. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: HNC patients with hyposalivation may be a new risk group for DH.
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.