ArticleJournal of conservative dentistry and endodontics
Comparative clinical evaluation of two different formulated in-office newer desensitizing agents (Clinpro XT and Tokuyama Shield Force Plus) in reducing dentin hypersensitivity - A randomized clinical trial.
Article in Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of two various in-office newer desensitizing agents in reducing dentinal hypersensitivity in patients with mild-to-moderate sensitivity for a 1-month follow-up. Materials and Methods: Forty subjects with cervical dentin hypersensitivity (otherwise healthy patients) were included. A split-mouth, randomized clinical trial was conducted. A Visual Analog Scale (VAS) was used to record the initial sensitivity levels at the baseline visit. Each individual has been exposed to thermal (ethyl chloride spray) and evaporative (air blast) stimuli to elicit sensitivity. A single application of two different in-office desensitizing agents, Clinpro XT Varnish (3M ESPE, Minnesota, USA) and Shield Force Plus (Tokuyama Dental, Tokyo, Japan), was done. The sensitivity scores were recorded after the application of the desensitizing agent immediately, after 1 week, and after 1 month using both air and cold stimuli in the same manner as initially. Results: Mean VAS scores represent teeth that were more sensitive to cold stimuli compared to air blasts in both groups. For both stimuli at all-time intervals except baseline, there is a significant difference between CXT and SFP, with low mean VAS scores for CXT. Conclusion: Clinpro XT Varnish is more efficient compared to Shield Force Plus at all-time points irrespective of the stimuli after a 1-month follow-up.
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.