ArticleJournal of advanced pharmaceutical technology & research2022
A Comparision of conventional and laser assisted desensitization techniques for treating dentinal hypersensitivity.
Article in Journal of advanced pharmaceutical technology & research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The study's objective was to assess the effectiveness of conventional and laser-assisted desensitization in treating dentinal hypersensitivity (DH). Twenty patients were divided into experimental and control groups. Following scaling, patients in the control group were instructed to utilize desensitization paste; however, after comprehensive scaling, patients in the experimental group received treatment with the erbium, chromium, yttrium, scandium, gallium garnet (Er, Cr: YSGG) laser. Before laser emission, the visual analog scale (VAS) score was obtained for both groups. Postoperative VAS scores were recorded right away, 1 week and 1 month later for the test group, and 1 week and 1 month later for the control group, following the use of desensitizing paste. In comparison to the control group, the Er, Cr: YSGG laser treatment had a substantially higher desensitizing impact right away, according to the data. The variances in the mean VAS scores between baseline and all time periods after treatment for the test group were statistically significant. At any subsequent assessment, there were no discernible variations in plaque index between the test and control groups. The Er, Cr: YSGG laser is found to be more effective than the control group in treating DH within the confines of this investigation.
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.