Effect of a Self-adhering Material in Dental Hypersensitivity

March 21, 2017 updated by: Egle Milia, Università degli Studi di Sassari

A Comparative Study of a Self-adhering Material in Dental Hypersensitivity in Xerostomic Patients Due to Radiotherapy

Aim: To compare the desensitizing capacity of Vertise Flow™ (VF), a new self adhering material, in the treatment of dentine hypersensitivity (DH) in patients who are xerostomic due to radiotherapy for head and neck cancer.

Methods: A total of 17 patients were selected for the study. The study was conducted as a split-mouth randomized clinical trial comparing: 1) VF 2) Universal Dentin Sealant (UDS), 3) Clearfil Protect Bond (CPB) and 4) Flor-Opal® Varnish (FOV). Basal and stimulated salivary flow was recorded for each patient according to the method described by Sreebny. The pain experience was generated by a cold stimulus directly to a sensitive tooth surface and assessed using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). The response was recorded before the application of the materials (PRE-1), immediately after (POST-1), at 1-week (POST-2), 4-weeks (POST-3) and 12-week controls (POST-4).

Study Overview

Detailed Description

Participants The study was designed as a split-mouth randomized clinical trial. The protocol and informed consent forms were approved by the ethics committee at the University of Sassari (n° 1000/CE).

To participate in the study, all the subjects were carefully informed about the study's purpose, risks and benefits.

The study inclusion criteria were the following:

  • Generally good health despite the seriousness of their illness;
  • A clinical reduction of salivary flow;
  • The presence of two or three teeth which were hypersensitive to stimulation with a blast of air.

In addition, patients were considered suitable for the study if they had sensitive teeth showing abrasion, erosion or recession with the exposure of the cervical dentine.

The study exclusion criteria were:

  • teeth with subjective or objective evidence of carious lesions, pulpitis, restorations, premature contact, cracked enamel, active periapical infection or that had received periodontal surgery or root-planning up to 6 months prior to the investigation;
  • patients who had received professional desensitizing therapy during the previous 3 months;
  • patients who had used desensitizing toothpaste in the last 6 weeks. Patients were also excluded if they were under significant medication that could have interfered with pain perception (e.g., antidepressants, anti-inflammatory drugs, sedatives, and muscle relaxants).

Clinical Procedure

Saliva collection

All salivary assessments were performed in the absence of acute sialadenitis. All assessments were performed by the same observer. The flow rate was determined in every person according to the method described by Sreebny. Saliva was collected in a standardised manner. Patients were instructed not to eat, drink, or smoke for 90 minutes before the sialometric assessment. All assessments were performed at a fixed time of the day, between 10 am and 1 pm, in order to minimise fluctuations related to a circadian rhythm of salivary secretion and composition. The whole saliva sample was collected in pre-weighed plastic tubes using electronic scales.

Unstimulated salivary secretions were collected for 5 min with the patient seated in an upright position, with the head tilted forward . When possible the tongue, cheek and lip movements were limited during the procedure. At the end of the collection period the patient had to expectorate saliva into the test-tube. Stimulated whole saliva samples were collected by asking patients to chew a small block of paraffin wax or chewing gum. All the saliva secreted for 5 min was then collected in the test-tube. Measuring vessels were weighed after each collection using an electronic scales, and salivary flow rate was expressed in ml/min, which is nearly equivalent to g/min (31). A secretion rate < 0.1-0.2 ml/min for unstimulated flow and < 0.5-0.7 ml/min for stimulated flow was considered as an objective sign of hyposalivation.

Assessment of hypersensitivity and application of desensitizing agents.

A week before the experiment, patients received oral prophylaxis. Non-fluoride toothpaste (Biorepair, Coswell), a soft toothbrush (Oral-B Sensitive Advantage, Procter & Gamble) and oral hygiene instructions were also provided. The level of sensitivity experienced by each patient was considered as independent of the position of the hypersensitive tooth in the oral cavity. The pain experience was assessed by a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) using the methodology described in our previous study. The pain experience was measured using a VAS graded from 1 to 10. The pain stimulus was given by one examiner with the same equipment yielding similar air pressure each time, while another one performed the treatments. The same operator carried out the sensitivity test evaluating the subject's response before the application of the materials (PRE-1), immediately after (POST-1), after 1 week (POST-2), 4 weeks (POST-3), and 12 weeks (POST-4) .

The following dental materials were used following the manufacturers' instructions: Verities Flow™ (VF) (Kerr Corporation, Orange, CA, USA), a self-adhering composite; Universal Dentin Sealant (UDS) (Ultradent Products Inc., South Jordan, UT, USA), a biocompatible, non-polymerizable, high molecular weight resin sealant in alcohol solvent; Clearfil Protect Bond (CPB), (Kuraray Noritake Dental, Osaka, Japan) a methacrylate-based resin, self-etching adhesive system, and Flor-Opal® Varnish (FOV), (Ultradent Products Inc., South Jordan, UT, USA), a fluoride-based varnish.

In view of the treatment with the desensitizing agents, teeth were randomly assigned into four groups (N = per group).

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Actual)

17

Phase

  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Locations

      • Sassari, Italy, 07100
        • Complex Operative Unit of Dentistry

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

  • Child
  • Adult
  • Older Adult

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Generally good health despite the seriousness of their illness;
  • A clinical reduction of salivary flow;
  • The presence of two or three teeth which were hypersensitive to stimulation with a blast of air.

In addition, patients were considered suitable for the study if they had sensitive teeth showing abrasion, erosion or recession with the exposure of the cervical dentine.

Exclusion Criteria:

  • teeth with subjective or objective evidence of carious lesions, pulpitis, restorations, premature contact, cracked enamel, active periapical infection or that had received periodontal surgery or root-planning up to 6 months prior to the investigation;
  • patients who had received professional desensitizing therapy during the previous 3 months;
  • patients who had used desensitizing toothpaste in the last 6 weeks. Patients were also excluded if they were under significant medication that could have interfered with pain perception (e.g., antidepressants, anti-inflammatory drugs, sedatives, and muscle relaxants).

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Treatment
  • Allocation: N/A
  • Interventional Model: Single Group Assignment
  • Masking: None (Open Label)

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
Experimental: Xerostomic Patients

Patients with evident clinical signs of xerostomia who experienced dentinal hypersensitivity after undergoing radiation therapy due to head and neck cancer.

The following dental materials will be used following the manufacturers' instructions: Veritise Flow; Universal Dentin Sealant; Clearfil Protect Bond, and Flor-Opal® Varnish. In view of the treatment with the desensitizing agents, teeth were randomly assigned into four groups.

the application of the materials will be made only once. The effectiveness will be evaluated: immediately after application and after 1, 4, 12 weeks.

Self-adhering composite
Other Names:
  • Kerr Corporation, USA; Batch no. 3391829
non-polymerizable, high molecular weight resin sealant
Other Names:
  • Ultradent Products Inc., USA; Batch no. 052809
methacrylate-based resin, self-etching adhesive system
Other Names:
  • Kuraray Noritake Dental, Japan; Batch no. 041212
fluoride-based varnish
Other Names:
  • Ultradent Products Inc., USA; Batch no. 122005

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Evaluation of change of dentinal hypersensitivity after treatment
Time Frame: before the treatment (PRE-1), immediately after (POST-1), after 1 week (POST-2), 4 weeks (POST-3), and 12 weeks (POST-4).
The pain experience was assessed by a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) using the methodology. The VAS scale consisted of a horizontal line that was 100 mm long, on which 'no pain' was marked on the right-hand extremity and 'unbearable pain' on the other. The patients expressed the intensity of the pain experienced by placing a mark at any point along the continuum. The distance, expressed in millimetres, from the right edge of 'no pain' was used as the VAS score. Each patient was asked to rate the perception of discomfort after the application of air via a dental syringe at 45-60 psi, 1 cm at the cervical third of the tooth after removing supragingival plaque with a low- speed handpiece with pumice powder and without fluoride. The adjacent teeth were covered by cotton rolls. The stimulus was delivered until reaction or up to a maximum duration of 10 s by the same examiner with the same equipment yielding similar air pressure each time.
before the treatment (PRE-1), immediately after (POST-1), after 1 week (POST-2), 4 weeks (POST-3), and 12 weeks (POST-4).

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Publications and helpful links

The person responsible for entering information about the study voluntarily provides these publications. These may be about anything related to the study.

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start

March 1, 2012

Primary Completion (Actual)

June 1, 2014

Study Completion (Actual)

December 1, 2015

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

April 21, 2016

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

May 5, 2016

First Posted (Estimate)

May 9, 2016

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

March 24, 2017

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

March 21, 2017

Last Verified

March 1, 2017

More Information

Terms related to this study

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

No

IPD Plan Description

Not a plan for data sharing has been established. But, for anyone researcher would like to have this information, simply they may request them to us directly.

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Dentin Sensitivity

Clinical Trials on Veritise Flow

Subscribe