ArticleMedicine and pharmacy reports2021
Comparative evaluation of the efficacy of the desensitizing and remineralizing agent in the reduction of dentin hypersensitivity after orthodontic debonding - a randomized clinical trial.
Article in Medicine and pharmacy reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Short-term effectiveness of three agents for dentin hypersensitivity treatment: A randomized clinical trial.Bioinformation · 2026Article
- Evaluation of sodium fluoride, gluma, diode laser in dentine hypersensitivity.Bioinformation · 2025Article
- Casein Phosphopeptide and Diode Laser in Treating Dentin Hypersensitivity: A Clinical Study.Journal of lasers in medical sciences · 2025Article
- Mechanical Vibration and Chewing Gum Methods in Orthodontic Pain Relief.Turkish journal of orthodontics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionEnamel loss is a common problem during various orthodontic procedures. The study aims to compare the efficacy of a desensitizer and remineralizer in the reduction of the dentin hypersensitivity (DH) associated with enamel microcracks after orthodontic debonding.
methodsA unicentric two arm parallel study with 30 subjects randomly assigned to each groups following debonding.
resultsThe VAS scores for the airblast test for group 1 were (2.73, 0, 0.06, 0.03) and group 2 (2.46, 0, 0.16, 0.13) at different periods. The sensitivity scores for the cold blast test for group 1 were (2.73, 0, 0.13, 0.03) and for group 2 (2.46, 0, 0.16, 0.13). There was 98 percent reduction in DH between T0 and T3 and was statistically significant (p<0.05) for both the groups.
conclusionGluma® desensitizer and GC Tooth Mousse Plus® are equally effective in the reduction of DH in the orthodontic patient following debonding.
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.