Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39803076›Full record

ArticleCureus2024

Evaluation of Gluma® and MI Varnish™ for In-Office Treatment of Dentinal Hypersensitivity: An Observational Study.

Rishabh Trivedi, Nayana Patel, Radha Vachhani, Nisha Verlianey, Jalpak Shukla, Mansi Sharma

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Rishabh TrivediDepartment of Periodontology and Implantology, Government Dental College and Hospital, Jamnagar, Jamnagar, IND.
Nayana PatelDepartment of Periodontology and Implantology, Government Dental College and Hospital, Jamnagar, Jamnagar, IND.
Radha VachhaniDepartment of Periodontology and Implantology, Government Dental College and Hospital, Jamnagar, Jamnagar, IND.
Nisha VerlianeyDepartment of Periodontology and Implantology, Government Dental College and Hospital, Jamnagar, Jamnagar, IND.
Jalpak ShuklaDepartment of Periodontology and Implantology, Government Dental College and Hospital, Jamnagar, Jamnagar, IND.
Mansi SharmaDepartment of Periodontology and Implantology, Government Dental College and Hospital, Jamnagar, Jamnagar, IND.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction In their routine practice, dentists frequently encounter dentinal hypersensitivity, which is caused by the pulpal nerves' increased excitability due to fluid movement in the dentinal tubules. It is treated in-office using dentin desensitizers, which reduce hypersensitivity by obstructing the open tubules or desensitizing the free nerve endings present within the tubules. However, no substance or treatment plan has ever been proven to be the gold standard for the efficient treatment of dentinal hypersensitivity. Aim The aim of the study was to compare the effectiveness of two treatments for in-office dentinal hypersensitivity: Gluma

Indexed as

dentinal hypersensitivitydentin desensitizersgluma desensitizervarnishvisual analog scale

Identifiers

PMID39803076
PMCPMC11721058

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.