Clinical oral investigations 2018 01 12() doi 10.1007/s00784-017-2330-9
The aim of this review is to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the effectiveness of in-home or in-office treatments for dentin hypersensitivity.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
An electronic search without restriction on dates or languages was performed in four electronic databases until March 2017. In addition, hand-searches in regular journals and in the gray literature were also conducted. To develop the search strategy, clinical questions were formulated using the PICOS method. Eligibility criteria included randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that compared the effectiveness of different agents for the treatment of dentin hypersensitivity through chemical occlusion, physical occlusion, nerve desensitization, or photobiomodulation (low-level light therapy). This systematic review was registered in PROSPERO under number CRD42016039394.
Twenty-five RCTs (16 parallel; 9 split-mouth), published from 1992 to 2016, were included. The results of the meta-analysis showed that in-office subgroups treated with chemical or physical occlusion of dentin tubules and nerve desensitization had a statistically significant difference from placebo, with P < 0.00001, P < 0.00001, and P = 0.02, respectively. For in-home treatments, the results of the meta-analysis showed that only those subgroups treated with chemical occlusion of dentin tubules and nerve desensitization exhibited a statistically significant difference from placebo, with P < 0.00001 and P = 0.03, respectively. CONCLUSIONS
The results of pairwise meta-analysis suggest that among in-office treatments, dentinal tubule occlusion (whether chemical or physical) and nerve desensitization provide the best outcomes for treatment of dentin hypersensitivity. For in-home treatments, only chemical occlusion of dentin tubules and nerve desensitization showed a greater treatment efficacy than placebo and the difference was statistically significant.