Trial reportPloS one2026
Longevity of different in-office treatments for dentin hypersensitivity: A 6-month randomized and parallel clinical trial.
Trial report in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This longitudinal, randomized, parallel-design clinical trial aimed to evaluate the long-term effectiveness of different in-office treatments for dentin hypersensitivity (DH) over a 6-month period. A total of 192 teeth presenting DH associated with root surface exposure were treated with one of four desensitizing agents: fluoride varnish (Duraphat - FLU, active control), bioactive ceramic solution (Biosilicate - BIOS), universal self-etching adhesive (Single Bond Universal - SBU), and a bioactive, photoactivated varnish containing PRG fillers (SPRG). DH was assessed using a visual analogue scale (VAS) to analyse intensity of sensitivity and a computerized visual scale (CoVAS) to observe the time course of sensibility at baseline, 7, 15, 30 days and 6 months post-treatment. Comparisons between groups were conducted using Fisher's exact test for qualitative variables and analysis of variance (ANOVA) for quantitative variables. Longitudinal outcomes (VAS and CoVAS) were evaluated using linear mixed-effects models, with post hoc comparisons performed using orthogonal contrasts. Statistical differences were found for VAS analysis (p < 0.05). Comparing the desensitizers, FLU showed higher sensitivity than SBU, after 7 days. Comparing follow-up periods, a significant reduction in DH beginning at 7 days for BIOS and SBU, and at 15 days for FLU and SPRG. Regarding CoVAS time course, FLU exhibited a significantly shorter time course than SBU, after 15 days and 6 months of follow-up (p ≤ 0.05). SPRG was the only treatment that showed no difference in reaction time between 6 months and baseline (p > 0.05). In conclusion, root exposure height and the presence of an antagonist tooth may influence the initial intensity of DH. All treatments reduced DH over 6 months. Only bioactive resin varnish maintained the same reaction time in all periods. Universal adhesive system had slowed pain reaction time compared to conventional fluoride varnish.
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.