PUBLISHED VERSION

Bartold, Mark Dentinal hypersensitivity: a review Australian Dental Journal, 2006; 51(3):212-218

PERMISSIONS

This document has been archived with permission from the Australian Dental

Association, received 18th January, 2007.

Australian Dental Association: http://www.ada.org.au/

http://hdl.handle.net/2440/22667

REVIEW Australian Dental Journal 2006;51:(3):212-218

Dentinal hypersensitivity: a review

PM Bartold*

Abstract Even after long periods of exposure to the oral Tooth sensitivity is a very common clinical environment, dentinal sensitivity may still be a presentation which can cause considerable concern significant problem despite the exposed tubules for patients. This condition is frequently encountered becoming occluded by the smear layer or pellicle. Thus, by periodontists, dentists, hygienists and dental once sensitivity has become established the pulp may therapists. The management of this condition become irreversibly sensitive. Treatment is therefore requires a good understanding of the complexity of aimed at not only restoring the original impermeability the problem, as well as the variety of treatments of the tubules by occluding them, but also controlling available. This review considers the aetiology, incidence and management of dentinal the neural elements within the pulp to dampen the hypersensitivity. external stimulatory effects. These two modes of control are either partial or total obliteration of the Key words: Dentinal hypersensitivity, desensitizing agents, cervical sensitivity. dentinal tubules or alteration of pulpal sensory activity, or both. (Accepted for publication 15 March 2006.) Theories for dentinal hypersensitivity Odontoblastic transduction theory INTRODUCTION According to this theory, odontoblastic processes are Dentinal hypersensitivity, or cervical dentinal exposed on the dentine surface and can be excited by a sensitivity, is a significant clinical problem. It is defined variety of chemical and mechanical stimuli.2,3 As a as pain arising from exposed dentine typically in result of such stimulation neurotransmitters are response to thermal, chemical, tactile or osmotic released and impulses are transmitted towards the 1 stimuli. nerve endings. To date no neurotransmitters have been Dentine may become exposed via several means. For found to be produced or released by odontoblastic example, the enamel or cementum which normally processes. covers the dentine surface may be removed or denuded as a result of attrition, abrasion or erosion. Neural theory Alternatively, in some individuals the cementum and As an extension of the odontoblastic theory, this enamel which normally cover the dentine do not meet concept advocates that thermal, or mechanical stimuli, and result in dentine exposure as a result of a directly affect nerve endings within the dentinal tubules developmental anomaly. In general, it appears that through direct communication with pulpal nerve fibres. dentinal hypersensitivity is rarely a result of just one of While this theory has been supported by the observation the above factors, but rather a combination of more of the presence of unmyelinated nerve fibres in the than one factor. Regardless of the aetiology of dentine 4 exposure, one feature appears to be in common and outer layer of root dentine and the presence of putative 5 that is open dentinal tubules which provide a direct link neurogenic polypeptides, this theory is still considered between the external environment and the internal pulp theoretical with little solid evidence to support it. of the tooth. If the tubules are not exposed it seems unlikely that hypersensitivity will be found. In areas of Hydrodynamic theory sensitive dentine the apertures of the dentine tubules By far the most widely accepted theory for dentinal are patent and this results in more stimuli having closer hypersensitivity is the hydrodynamic theory proposed contact with the dental pulp. by Brannstrom and co-workers.6,7 This theory postulates that fluids within the dentinal tubules are disturbed either by temperature, physical or osmotic changes and that these fluid changes or movements stimulate a *The University of Adelaide, Colgate Australian Clinical Dental baroreceptor which leads to neural discharge. The basis Research Centre, Dental School. of this theory is that the fluid filled dentinal tubules are 212 Australian Dental Journal 2006;51:3. Table 1. Dentinal hypersensitivity epidemiological studies Authors Country Setting Study type n Prevalence (%) Jensen, 196467 USA University Clinical 3000 30 Graf and Glase, 197768 Switzerland Practice Clinical 351 15 Flynn et al., 199210 UK University Clinical 369 18 Orchardson and Collins, 198711 UK University Clinical 109 74 Fisher et al., 19928 Brazil University Clinical 635 17 Murray and Roberts, 199469 Indonesia Not stated Questionnaire 1000 27 Murray and Roberts, 199469 USA Not stated Questionnaire 1000 18 Murray and Roberts, 199469 Japan Not stated Questionnaire 1000 16 Murray and Roberts, 199469 France Not stated Questionnaire 1000 14 Murray and Roberts, 199469 Germany Not stated Questionnaire 1000 13 Murray and Roberts, 199469 Australia Not stated Questionnaire 1000 13 Chabanski et al., 199715 UK University Clinical 51 73 Irwin and McCusker, 199716 UK Practice Questionnaire 250 57 Liu et al., 199870 Taiwan University Clinical 780 32 Rees, 20009 UK Practice Clinical 3593 4 Taani and Awartani, 200271 Saudi Arabia University Clinical 295 42-60 Clayton et al., 200272 UK Air force Questionnaire 228 50 Rees and Addy 20029 UK Practice Clinical 4841 4.1 Rees et al., 200373 Hong Kong Hospital Clinical 226 67.6 open to the oral cavity at the dentine surface as well as with periodontitis showing the highest incidence of within the pulp. diagnosed dentinal hypersensitivity.9 In general, the excitement of nerve fibres by different The teeth most commonly affected by dentinal kinds of stimuli can be explained by the hydrodynamic hypersensitivity are the upper premolars followed by theory. For example, dehydration associated with the upper first molars with the incisors being the least desiccation following air movement over the exposed sensitive teeth.8-15 dentine surface results in outward movement of dentinal It has been reported that there is a slightly higher fluid towards the dehydrated surface, which triggers incidence of dentine hypersensitivity in females nerve fibres and results in a painful sensation. In a compared to males.8,10-12 This difference is, however, not similar manner thermal changes can result in expansion statistically significant.10 or contraction of the dentinal tubules resulting in The relationship between dentine hypersensitivity changes in dentinal fluid flow and associated excitation and ageing is unclear. It has been suggested that with of nerve fibres causing pain. High osmotic stimuli such the lifespan of the general population increasing, and as sugar, acid and salt can also result in fluid flow with- more people keeping their teeth longer, hypersensitivity in the dentinal tubules and induce nerve stimulation and painful sensations. Physical stimulation is more will increase in prevalence. This seems to make sense on difficult to explain through this theory although it is the basis that gingival recession and loss of enamel and possible that mechanical abrasion of the exposed cementum is more prevalent in older individuals. The dentine surface may be sufficient to induce unwanted above assumptions are somewhat confounded by fluid flow within the dentinal tubules with resulting reports in the literature which indicate that most pain from the stimulated nerve fibres. sufferers of dentine hypersensitivity range in age from 20 to 40 years with the peak incidence occurring at the Epidemiology of dentinal hypersensitivity end of the third decade and decreases during the fourth and fifth decades of life.10,16 This may be explained by Dentinal hypersensitivity appears to be a common the decrease in permeability of dentine and neural problem with various reports indicating an incidence of sensitivity with ageing. Such responses may arise from between 4 to 74 per cent of the population (Table 1). One reason for this large discrepancy relates to the the natural desensitization of sclerosis and secondary variations in the methods of data collection. Several dentine formation. In addition, long-term use of studies indicate that even though high percentages of a fluoride dentifrices can add to the occlusion of open 17 population may report to have sensitive teeth, a much dentine tubules resulting in a decrease in sensitivity. smaller proportion are actually diagnosed as having cervical dentine hypersensitivity on the basis of defined Clinical significance of hypersensitivity clinical diagnostic criteria.8 In general, it appears that Dentinal hypersensitivity, while neither life threatening the incidence of hypersensitivity in most populations nor a serious dental problem, can be a particularly ranges between 10 to 30 per cent of the general uncomfortable and unpleasant sensation for patients population. The incidence can vary considerably and can dictate types of foods and drinks ingested. depending on the cohort being studied with periodontal Patients may describe the condition as dull or sharp, patients, patients with gingival recession and smokers vague or specific and intermittent or constant. Teeth Australian Dental Journal 2006;51:3. 213 Table 2. Treatment strategies for dentinal very subjective and thus treatment results are largely hypersensitivity dependent upon the individual’s pain threshold.21,22 1. Nerve desensitization Potassium nitrate Role of dental plaque 2. Anti-inflammatory agents Corticosteroids While there are many factors which can contribute to 3. Cover or plugging dentinal tubules dentine hypersensitivity, plaque accumulation has often a. Plugging (sclerosing) dentinal tubules been cited as an important factor.23 Plaque accumulation Ions/salts on root surfaces may lead to demineralization of tooth Calcium hydroxide Ferrous oxide structures which could be associated with patency of Potassium oxalate dentinal tubule orifices.23 It has been reported that Sodium monofluorophosphate Sodium fluoride patients who maintain good levels of plaque control are Sodium fluoride/stannous fluoride combination less likely to report dentine hypersensitivity.24 On the Stannous fluoride other hand, patients who have significant proportions Strontium chloride Protein precipitants of their root surfaces covered with dental plaque report Formaldehyde more problems with dentine hypersensitivity.25-27 Glutaraldehyde Despite these findings, the influence of plaque on Silver nitrate Strontium chloride hexahydrate dentine hypersensitivity remains controversial. Casein phosphopeptides Interestingly, many patients with gingival recession Burnishing Fluoride iontophoresis have minimal plaque deposits yet still complain of b. Dentine sealers sensitivity. Glass ionomer cements Composites Nerve desensitization Resins Varnishes Potassium nitrate Sealants Methyl methacrylate A number of studies have reported the efficacy of c. Periodontal soft tissue grafting potassium nitrate for managing dentinal hyper- d. Crown placement/restorative material sensitivity.28-31 While the Hodosh study was the first to e. Lasers report that potassium nitrate was a “superior desensitizer” this study was not well controlled and it was not until the studies of Tarbet et al.29,30 that good causing such symptoms are rarely considered to be as evidence for the efficacy of potassium nitrate in seriously affected as those affected by caries, endodontic managing dentinal hypersensitivity was demonstrated. problems or periodontal disease, however, the condition These controlled studies demonstrated that potassium is nonetheless of sufficient concern to warrant appropriate and proper management. In most instances nitrate at a concentration of 5% in a low abrasive the condition can be managed by patients through toothpaste was able to desensitize dentine for up to appropriate home care using properly prescribed over- four weeks compared to a control paste. Potassium the-counter products. These features of the condition nitrate in bioadhesive gels at 5% and 10% has also negate, in the majority of cases, the need for expensive been shown to be effective in reducing dentinal hyper- 32 and lengthy professional care. Notwithstanding the sensitivity. Importantly, it has been shown that 33 above, the condition still requires an appropriate potassium nitrate does not induce any pulpal changes. differential diagnosis since carious exposure of dentine Despite these encouraging findings it is interesting to surfaces, inflamed pulps or cracked cusps can produce note that a recent Cochrane Database Systematic symptoms similar to cervical dentinal hypersensitivity.18 Review failed to find strong evidence supporting the efficacy of potassium nitrate toothpaste for dentine Treatment for hypersensitivity hypersensitivity.34 Nonetheless, this review did report There is a surprisingly large number of treatment that the differences which were noted were statistically options for managing dentinal hypersensitivity. significant in favour of treatment with potassium Chemical or physical agents are used to either nitrate toothpaste. desensitize the nerve or cover the exposed dentinal The mechanism of action of potassium nitrate is tubules (Table 2). The most common form of manage- largely unknown, although an oxidizing effect or ment is the placement of a topically applied agent blocking of tubules by crystallization has been applied either by a dental professional or by the patient proposed28 but not proven. The effect of potassium at home. All currently available treatments appear to nitrate on dentinal fluid flow has been reported to be work.19 minimal even at a 30% concentration.35 A more likely Several criteria are recognized as constituting an explanation is that the potassium ions are the active ideal desensitizing agent. These include not irritating component and that potassium nitrate reduces dentinal the pulp, being relatively painless to apply, easily sensory nerve activity due to the depolarizing activity of applied, rapid action, permanently effective and should the K+ ion,36 although this proposal has never been not discolour the teeth.20 Overall, patient responses are confirmed in intact human teeth.37 214 Australian Dental Journal 2006;51:3. Anti-inflammatory agents effective in controlling dentinal hypersensitivity.50 The Corticosteroids mode of action appears to be through the induction of Anti-inflammatory agents such as corticosteroids a high mineral content which creates a calcific barrier 51 have been proposed for use to manage dentine hyper- blocking the tubular openings on the dentine surface. sensitivity. However, trials have not found them to be Alternatively, stannous fluoride may precipitate on the particularly useful.22 While it is presumed that these dentine surface leading to occlusion of the exposed 21 agents may induce mineralization leading to tubule dentinal tubules. occlusion, this view has yet to be validated38 and the validity of using such agents has been questioned.39 Fluoride iontophoresis Iontophoresis is the process of influencing ionic Covering or plugging dentinal tubules motion by an electric current and has been used as a desensitizing procedure in conjunction with sodium Calcium hydroxide fluoride.42 Studies report that there is an immediate Several studies have reported on the effectiveness of reduction in sensitivity after treatment with ion- calcium hydroxide in managing dentinal hyper- tophoresis, but the symptoms gradually return over the 40-42 sensitivity. Its mode of action has been proposed to ensuing six months.52 This method has enjoyed some be via occlusion of dentinal tubules through the binding popularity but more controlled studies are required.53 of loose protein radicals by calcium ions42 and increasing mineralization of the exposed dentine. Although Formaldehyde or glutaraldehyde immediately effective, the action of calcium hydroxide Claims have been made that formaldehyde and diminishes rapidly requiring multiple applications to glutaraldehyde, through their ability to precipitate maintain its effect.19 A negative feature of calcium salivary proteins in dentinal tubules, can be used to hydroxide is its reported irritation of gingival tissues.22 manage dentinal hypersensitivity. However, this effect has been questioned since various formulations have Casein phosphopeptides been found to have little or no effect on dentinal hyper- A relatively new product on the market composed of sensitivity.49,54 Given that these agents are very strong casein phosphopeptides has been used for the manage- tissue fixatives, they should be used with extreme ment of dentinal hyperersensitivity. Despite a number caution to ensure they do not come in contact with the of anecdotal case reports on various websites, to date vital gingival tissues. there are no published studies reporting the efficacy of this material for dentinal hyperersensitivity. Dentine sealers Resins and adhesives Sodium fluoride Sealing of dentinal tubules with resins and adhesives Many clinical studies have shown that treatment of has been advocated for many years as a means of exposed root surfaces with fluoride toothpaste and managing dentinal hypersensitivity.55 In general, results concentrated fluoride solutions is very efficient in have been good but problems arise when the adhesive 43-45 managing dentinal hypersensitivity. The improvement breaks away resulting in exposure of the tubules. This appears to be due to an increase in the resistance of technique is generally reserved for cases of specific and dentine to acid decalcification as well as to precipitations localized dentinal hypersensitivity rather than generalized 46 in the exposed dentinal tubules. Tal et al. suggested dentinal pain.21 that the probable desensitizing effects of fluoride are related to precipitated fluoride compounds mechanically Lasers blocking exposed dentinal tubules or fluoride within Both the Nd:YAG and CO lasers have been studied the tubules blocking transmission of stimuli. 2 for their use in managing dentinal hypersensitivity. Both applications rely on their ability to occlude the Sodium monofluorophosphate dentinal tubules. The Nd:YAG laser has been used in Toothpastes containing sodium monofluorophosphate conjunction with sodium fluoride varnish with have been shown to be effective in managing dentinal encouraging results showing up to 90 per cent of the hypersensitivity.47,48 The mechanism of action of sodium dentinal tubules being occluded through use of this 21 56 monofluorophosphate is unclear. It does not appear to combined therapy. CO2 laser irradiation and stannous act by occluding dentinal tubules since scanning fluoride gel has also been shown to be effective for electronmicroscopic studies have failed to demonstrate inducing tubule occlusion for up to six months after any visual changes to the dentine surface treated with treatment.57,58 While still largely experimental, this sodium monofluorophosphate.21 Any tubule occlusion technique requires further scientific investigation before which might occur does not appear to be permanent.29 it becomes a clinically acceptable means of treatment.

Stannous fluoride Combination of desensitizing agents and fluoride Stannous fluoride in either an aqueous solution or in Because some effective desensitizing dentifrices (such glycerine gelled with carboxymethyl cellulose is as those containing potassium nitrate) were not Australian Dental Journal 2006;51:3. 215 fluoridated, people requiring relief from dentinal issues of products under investigation to be reported as sensitivity and protection against dental caries needed part of the routine experimental protocol. to use both desensitizing and fluoridated dentifrices. As Safety measures for toothpastes generally include a result a number of well-controlled clinical studies adverse event data to elicit complaints/symptoms of the have been carried out to determine the efficacy of subjects at each examination time point and by potassium nitrate as a desensitizing agent in dentifrices evaluating changes in medical history and concomitant containing fluoride.59-62 As early as 1992, the United medications. All adverse reactions are recorded, listing States Food and Drug Administration granted Category the date of onset, duration, frequency, maximum 1 status to combination 5% potassium nitrate:fluoride intensity, seriousness, action taken and outcome. In dentifrices, indicating they were not only safe but also addition, the oral soft tissues and perioral area should effective.63 always be visually examined to evaluate effects that could be manifested as a tissue response to an irritant, Restorative materials soft tissue pathology or other clinically meaningful The use of restorative materials is generally an deviations from the normal. invasive solution to the problem of hypersensitivity. Commonly used materials include composite resins and It is of particular note here that there are very few glass ionomer restorations. Generally this approach is (if any) reports of adverse reactions to dentifrices reserved for situations where there has been significant containing the desensitizing agents listed above prior loss of cervical tooth structure or as a last resort (Table 2). A Medline search (concluded December for a tooth which does not respond to other less 2005) failed to find any citations regarding adverse invasive desensitizing protocols. reactions, toxicity or safety problems with strontium chloride or potassium nitrate. Only a few citations were Periodontal surgery found for fluoride formulations and these involved pre- There are numerous soft tissue grafting procedures dominantly children. which can be carried out to cover exposed root surfaces Since dentinal hypersensitivity is considered to be a including lateral sliding grafts, free gingival grafts, response to a localized condition within individual connective tissue grafts and coronally repositioned teeth and is not indicative of, or related to, any known flaps. While these procedures may cover exposed systemic condition, management of dentinal hyper- dentinal tubules, some are not very predictable in terms sensitivity is not considered to mask or impact on any of their efficacy in root surface coverage. Soft tissue other systemic conditions which a patient might have. grafting for localized recession defects requires careful There is no literature to support the concept that planning and an understanding of the anatomical dentinal hypersensitivity is anything other than a defect to be treated. In general, soft tissue grafting for well-localized dental problem. the management of sensitivity is not regarded as a very Finally, one of the most effective treatments for the predictable treatment strategy. majority of patients is simple daily plaque removal. Daily plaque removal over time allows demineralization Safety of commonly used at home desensitizing agents of the dentinal tubules from salivary minerals and can Most “at home” desensitizing agents are generally alleviate much of the discomfort caused by exposed restricted to dentifrices and mouthrinses containing one dentine. The use of an additional aid, such as a or a combination of the agents discussed above. Of dentifrice containing additional agents which might these, the most common “active ingredients” are expedite (or at least encourage) improved oral hygiene potassium nitrate, stannous fluoride, sodium fluoride, and daily plaque removal, is not considered harmful to sodium monofluorophosphate and strontium chloride.64 either the tooth, the surrounding soft tissues, or the For all products which are currently on the market as over-the-counter products extensive toxicity testing has whole body. already been carried out by the manufacturers and has been reviewed by various regulatory bodies to ensure CONCLUSION both safety and efficacy. Dentinal hypersensitivity is a relatively common and Although there is only minimal evidence to significant dental problem which can be successfully demonstrate superiority of one desensitizing agent over managed by a very wide variety of procedures, agents another, there is ample evidence that desensitizing and formulations applied locally, either “in office” or toothpastes do provide benefit to the patients suffering “at home”. It is clear that some products appear to be from dentinal hypersensitivity.19,21,65,66 more effective than others. For those products As a general rule, all well performed clinical studies developed for self application at home, potassium published in the literature report safety assessments of nitrate, stannous fluoride, sodium fluoride, sodium the products under study.60 Moreover, in recent times, monofluorophosphate and strontium chloride have all studies carried out within universities require the been extensively studied and shown to be not only safe approval of a human ethics committee prior to to use but of benefit to individuals suffering from commencement. All such committees require safety dentinal hypersensitivity. 216 Australian Dental Journal 2006;51:3. REFERENCES 26. Trowbridge HO, Silver DR. A review of current approaches to in-office management of tooth hypersensitivity. Dent Clin North 1. Addy M, Mostafa P, Absi EG, Adams D. Cervical dentin hyper- Am 1990;34:561-581. sensitivity. Etiology and management with particular reference to dentifrices. In: Rowe NH, ed. Proceedings of Symposium on 27. Cox CF. Etiology and treatment of root hypersensitivity. Am J Hypersensitive Dentin Origin and Management. Michigan: Dent 1994;7:266-270. University of Michigan, 1985:147-167. 28. Hodosh M. A superior desensitizer – potassium nitrate. J Am 2. Bernick S. Innervation of the human tooth. Anat Res Dent Assoc 1974;88:831-832. 1948;101:293-297. 29. Tarbet WJ, Silverman G, Stolman JM, Fratarcangelo PA. Clinical 3. Frank RM. Attachment sites between the odontoblast process of evaluation of a new treatment for dentinal hypersensitivity. J the intradental nerve fiber. Arch Oral Biol 1968;13:833-834. Periodontol 1980;51:535-540. 4. Frank RM, Steuer P. Transmission electron microscopy of the 30. Tarbet WJ, Silverman G, Fratarcangelo PA, Kanapka JA. Home human odontoblast process in peripheral root dentin. Arch Oral treatment for dentinal hypersensitivity: a comparative study. J Biol 1988;31:91-98. Am Dent Assoc 1982;105:227-230. 5. McGrath PA. The measurement of human pain. Endod Dent 31. Nagata T, Ishida H, Shinohara H, et al. Clinical evaluation of a Traumatol 1986;2:124-129. potassium nitrate dentifrice for the treatment of dentinal hyper- 6. Brannstrom M, Astrom A. The hydrodynamics of the dentine, its sensitivity. J Clin Periodontol 1994;21:217-221. possible relationship to dentinal pain. Int Dent J 1972;22:219- 32. Frechoso SC, Menendez M, Guisasola C, Arregui I, Tejerina JM, 227. Sicilia A. Evaluation of the efficacy of two potassium nitrate 7. Brannstrom M, Johnson G, Nordenvall KJ. Transmission and bioadhesive gels (5% and 10%) in the treatment of dentine control of dental pain: resin impregnation for the desensitization hypersensitivity. A randomized clinical trial. J Clin Periodontol of dentin. J Am Dent Assoc 1979;99:612-618. 2003;30:315-320. 8. Fischer C, Fischer RG, Wennberg A. Prevalence and distribution 33. Tarbet WJ, Buckner A, Stark MM, Fratarcangelo PA, Augsburger of cervical dentine hypersensitivity in a population in Rio de R. The pulpal effects of brushing with a 5 percent potassium Janiero, Brazil. J Dent 1992;20:272-276. nitrate paste used for desensitization. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1981;51:600-602. 9. Rees JS, Addy M. A cross-sectional study of dentin hyper- sensitivity. J Clin Periodontol 2002;29:997-1003. 34. Poulsen S, Errboe M, Hovgaard O, Worthington HW. Potassium nitrate toothpaste for dentine hypersensitivity. Cochrane 10. Flynn J, Galloway R, Orchardson R. The incidence of “hyper- Database Syst Rev 2001;2:CD001476. sensitive” teeth in the west of Scotland. J Dent 1985;13:230-236. 11. Orchardson R, Collins WJN. Clinical features of hypersensitive 35. Greenhill JD, Pashley DH. The effects of desensitizing agents on teeth. Br Dent J 1987;162:253-256. the hydraulic conductance of human dentin in vitro. J Dent Res 1981;60:686-698. 12. Addy M, Mostafa P, Newcombe RG. Dentine hypersensitivity: the distribution of recession, sensitivity and plaque. J Dent 36. Markowitz K, Kim S. Hypersensitive teeth. Experimental studies 1987;15:242-248. of dentinal desensitizing agents. Dent Clin North Am 1990;34:491-501. 13. Rees JS. The prevalence of dentine hypersensitivity in general dental practice in the UK. J Clin Periodontol 2000;27:860-865. 37. Orchardson R, Gillam DG. The efficacy of potassium salts as agents for treating dentin hypersensitivity. J Orofac Pain 14. Chabanski MB, Gillam DG, Bulman JS, Newman HN. 2000;14:9-19. Prevalence of cervical dentine sensitivity in a population of patients referred to a specialist periodontology department. J Clin 38. Krauser JT. Hypersensitive teeth. Part II: Treatment. J Prosthet Periodontol 1996;23:989-992. Dent 1986;56:307-311. 15. Chabanski MG, Gillam DG, Bulman JS, Newman HN. Clinical 39. Ong G. Desensitizing agents. A review. Clin Prev Dent evaluation of cervical dentine sensitivity in a population of 1986;8:14-18. patients referred to a specialist periodontology department: a 40. Levin MP, Yerwood LL, Carpenter WN. The desensitizing effect pilot study. J Oral Rehab 1997;24:666-672. of calcium hydroxide and magnesium hydroxide on hyper- 16. Irwin CR, McCusker P. Prevalence of dentine hypersensitivity in sensitive dentine. Oral Surg 1973;35:741-746. a general dental population. J Ir Dent Assoc 1979;43:7-9. 41. Green BL, Green M, McFall WT Jr. Calcium hydroxide and 17. Tillis TSI, Keating JG. Understanding and managing dentin potassium nitrate as desensitizing agents for hypersensitive root hypersensitivity. J Dent Hygiene 2002;76:296-310. surfaces. J Periodontol 1977;48:667-672. 18. Al-Sabbagh M, Andreana S, Ciancio SG. Dentinal hyper- 42. McFall WT. A review of the active agents available for treatment sensitivity: Review of aetiology, differential diagnosis, prevalence, of dentinal hypersensitivity. Endod Dent Traumatol 1986;2:141- and mechanism. J Int Acad Periodontol 2004;6:8-12. 149. 19. Ling TYY, Gillam DG. The effectiveness of desensitizing agents 43. Minkov B, Marmari I, Gedalia I, Garfunkel A. The effectiveness for the management of cervical dentine sensitivity (CDS) – A of sodium fluoride treatment with and without iontophoresis on review. J Western Soc Periodontol 1996;44:5-12. the reduction of hypersensitive dentin. J Periodontol 20. Dababneh RH, Khouri AT, Addy M. Dentine hypersensitivity – 1975;46:246-249. an enigma? A review of terminology, mechanisms, aetiology and 44. Gedalia I, Bayer L, Kalter N, Richter M, Stabhjolz A. The effect management. Br Dent J 1999;187:606-611. of sodium fluoride and strontium application on dentine: in vivo 21. Addy M, Dowell P. Dentine hypersensitivity – A review. Clinical and in vitro studies. J Periodontol 1978;49:269-272. and in vitro evaluation of treatments. J Clin Periodontol 45. Kerns DG, Scheidt MJ, Pashley DH, Horner JA, Strong SL, Van 1983;10:351-363. Dyke TE. Dentinal tubule occlusion and root hypersensitivity. J 22. Scherman A, Jaocobsen PL. Managing dentin hypersensitivity: Periodontol 1991;62:421-428. what treatment to recommend to patients. J Am Dent Assoc 46. Tal M, Orion M, Gedalia I, Ehrlich J. X-ray diffraction and 1992;123:57-61. scanning electron microscope investigations of fluoride-treated 23. Kawasaki A, Ishikawa K, Suge T, et al. Effects of plaque control dentine in man. Arch Oral Biol 1976;21:285-290. on the patency and occlusion of dentine tubules in situ. J Oral 47. Shapiro WB, Kaslick RS, Chasens AL, Weinstein D. Controlled Rehab 2001;28:439-449. clinical comparison between a strontium chloride and sodium 24. Manochehr-Pour M. Clinical evaluation of two potassium nitrate monofluorophosphate toothpaste in diminishing root hyper- toothpastes for the treatment of dental hypersensitivity. sensitivity. J Periodontol 1970;41:523-525. Periodontal Case Rep 1984;6:25-30. 48. Hernandez F, Mohammed C, Shannon I, Volpe A, King W. 25. Hiatt WH, Johansen E. Root preparation. Obturation of dentinal Clinical study evaluating the desensitizing effect and duration of tubules in treatment of root hypersensitivity. J Periodontol two commercially available dentifrices. J Periodontol 1972;43:373-380. 1972;43:367-372. Australian Dental Journal 2006;51:3. 217 49. Addy M, Mostafa P. Dentine hypersensitivity: I. Effects produced 63. Taylor MR. Combination drug products containing potassium by the uptake in vitro of metal ions, fluoride and formaldehyde nitrate and an anticaries ingredient. Fed Regist 1992;57:20114- onto dentine. J Oral Rehab 1988;15:575-585. 20115. 50. Miller JT, Shannon IL, Kilgore WG, Brookman JE. Use of a 64. Hill M, Moore RL. Dentinal hypersensitivity. J Contemp Dent water-free stannous fluoride-containing gel in the control of Pract 1999;1:55-65. dentinal hypersensitivity. J Periodontol 1969;40:490-491. 65. Kanapka JA. Over-the-counter dentifrices in the treatment of 51. Furseth R. A study of experimentally exposed and fluoride tooth hypersensitivity. Review of clinical studies. Dent Clin treated dental cementum in pigs. Acta Odont Scand North Am 1990;34:545-560. 1970;28:833-850. 66. Berman LH. Dentinal sensation and hypersensitivity. A review of 52. Kern DA, McQuade MJ, Scheidt MJ, Hanson B, Van Dyke TE. mechanisms and treatment alternatives. J Periodontol Effectiveness of sodium fluoride on tooth hypersensitivity with 1984;56:216-222. and without iontophoresis. J Periodontol 1989;60:386-389. 67. Jensen AL. Hypersensitivity controlled by iontophoresis: double 53. Gillam DG, Newman HN. Iontophoresis in the treatment of blind clinical investigation. J Am Dent Assoc 1964;68:216-225. cervical dentinal sensitivity – a review. J West Soc Periodontol 68. Graf H, Galasse R. Morbidity, prevalence and intraoral Periodontal Abstr 1990;38:129-133. distribution of hypersensitive teeth (Abstract No. 479). J Dent 54. Smith AB, Ash MM. Evaluation of a desensitizing dentifrice. J Res 1997;56(Spec Iss A):162. Am Dent Assoc 1964;68:639-647. 69. Murray LE, Roberts AJ. The prevalence of self reported hyper- 55. Brannstrom M, Johnson G. Effects of various conditioners and sensitive teeth. Arch Oral Biol 1994;39:129S. cleansing agents on prepared dentin surfaces. A scanning electron 70. Liu HC, Lan WH, Hsieh CC. Prevalence and distribution of microscopic investigation. J Prosthet Dent 1974;31:422-426. cervical dentin hypersensitivity in a population in Taipei, Taiwan. 56. Lan WH, Liu HC, Lin CP. The combined occluding effect of J Endod 1998;24:45-47. sodium fluoride varnish and Nd:YAG laser irradiation on human 71. Taani SD, Awartani F. Clinical evaluation of cervical dentine dentinal tubules. J Endod 1999;25:424-426. sensitivity (CDS) in patients attending general dental clinics 57. Moritz A, Schoop U, Goharkhay K, et al. Long-term effects of (GDC) and periodontal specialty clinics (PSC). J Clin Periodontol CO2 laser irradiation on treatment of hypersensitive dental necks: 2002;29:118-122. results of an in vivo study. J Clin Laser Med Surg 1998;16:211- 72. Clayton DR, McCarthy D, Gillam DG. A study of the prevalence 215. and distribution of dentine sensitivity in a population of 17-58- 58. Ciaramicoli MT, Carvalho RC, Eduardo CP. Treatment of year-old serving personnel on an RAF base in the Midlands. J cervical dentin hypersensitivity using neodymium: Yttrium- Oral Rehabil 2002;29:14-23. aluminum-garnet laser. Clinical evaluation. Lasers Surg Med 73. Rees JS, Jin LJ, Lam S, Kudanowska I, Vowles R. The prevalence 2003;33:358-362. of dentine hypersensitivity in a hospital clinic population in Hong 59. Silverman G. The sensitivity-reducing effect of brushing with a Kong. J Dent 2003;31:453-461. potassium nitrate-sodium monofluorophosphate dentifrice. Compend Contin Educ Dent 1985;6:131-136. 60. Silverman G, Berman E, Hanna CB, et al. Assessing the efficacy of three dentifrices in the treatment of dentinal hypersensitivity. J Am Dent Assoc 1996;127:191-201. 61. Schiff T, Dos Santos M, Laffi S, et al. Efficacy of a dentifrice Address for correspondence/reprints: containing 5% potassium nitrate and 1500 PPM sodium mono- Professor PM Bartold fluorophosphate in a precipitated calcium carbonate base on The University of Adelaide dentinal hypersensitivity. J Clin Dent 1998;9:22-25. Colgate Australian Clinical Dental Research Centre 62. Sowinski J, Ayad F, Petrone M, et al. Comparative investigations of the desensitizing efficacy of a new dentifrice. J Clin Dental School Periodontol 2001;28:1032-1036. Email: [email protected]

218 Australian Dental Journal 2006;51:3.