Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38922247›Full record

Trial reportBrazilian dental journal2024

Efficacy of different in-office treatments for dentin hypersensitivity: randomized and parallel clinical trial.

Fernanda de Souza E Silva Ramos, André Luiz Fraga Briso, Larissa Albertinazzi, Vitória Marega Marchetti, Marina Trevelin Souza, Ticiane Cestari Fagundes

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Brazilian dental journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Effects of Ozonized Oil on At-Home Tooth Bleaching: A Double-Blind Randomized Clinical Trial.Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.] · 2026
    Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Biological Effects on S-PRG: An Integrative Review.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Fernanda de Souza E Silva RamosDepartment of Preventive and Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, São Paulo State University (UNESP), Araçatuba, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0003-2222-2424
André Luiz Fraga BrisoDepartment of Preventive and Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, São Paulo State University (UNESP), Araçatuba, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-6126-1760
Larissa AlbertinazziDepartment of Preventive and Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, São Paulo State University (UNESP), Araçatuba, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0001-5745-2874
Vitória Marega MarchettiDepartment of Preventive and Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, São Paulo State University (UNESP), Araçatuba, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0003-4739-2075
Marina Trevelin SouzaVitreous Materials Laboratory, Department of Materials Engineering, Federal University of São Carlos, São Carlos, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-0291-6034
Ticiane Cestari FagundesDepartment of Preventive and Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, São Paulo State University (UNESP), Araçatuba, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-3418-0498

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of this clinical, prospective, randomized, and parallel study was to evaluate different in-office treatments for dentin hypersensitivity (DH). One hundred ninety-two teeth with non-cavitated root exposures were treated using different desensitizers: fluoride varnish (Duraphat - FLU); bioactive ceramic solution (Biosilicate - BIOS); universal self-etching adhesive (Single Bond Universal - SBU); bioactive photoactivated varnish (PRG filler - SPRG). The degree of DH was analyzed using a visual analog scale (VAS) and computerized visual scale (CoVAS), before treatments and after 7, 15, and 30 days from the first session. Comparisons among desensitizers were performed using the Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn's tests. Friedman test was used to compare between times (p ≤ 0.05). Comparing desensitizers FLU presented a higher value of DH than BIOS using VAS at 7 days, however, no differences were found using CoVAS analysis. Comparing times, BIOS and SBU showed a reduction in DH after 7 days and SBU showed a reduction at 30 days compared to 7 days using VAS. FLU and SPRG groups reduced DH from 15 days to 30 days using VAS. There was a reduction in DH for FLU, BIOS, and SBU after 7 days and for BIOS this reduction also occurred at 30 days when compared to 15 days using CoVAS. SPRG group showed a reduction from 15 to 30 days. All desensitizers tested were able to reduce the initial sensitivity. The bioactive ceramic solution reduced the DH gradually after 30 days using computerized analysis.

Indexed as

Dentin Desensitizing AgentsDentin SensitivityAdultFemaleFluorides, TopicalHumansMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesTreatment OutcomeDentin Desensitizing AgentsFluorides, Topical

Identifiers

PMID38922247
PMCPMC11196028

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.