In-office treatment for dentin hypersensitivity: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

• Published in: Journal of clinical periodontology 2013-01, Vol.40 (1), p.53-64
• Main Authors: Lin, Po-Yen, Cheng, Ya-Wen, Chu, Chia-Yi, Chien, Kuo-Liong, Lin, Chun-Pin, Tu, Yu-Kang
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Biological and medical sciences; Dentin; Dentin Desensitizing Agents - pharmacology; Dentin Desensitizing Agents - therapeutic use; dentin hypersensitivity; Dentin Permeability - drug effects; Dentin Sensitivity - therapy; Dentistry; Facial bones, jaws, teeth, parodontium: diseases, semeiology; Humans; in-office treatment; Laser Therapy; Medical sciences; Meta-analysis; network meta-analysis; Non tumoral diseases; Otorhinolaryngology. Stomatology; randomized controlled trials; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Systematic review
• ISSN: 0303-6979; 1600-051X
• DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.12011

Aim Dentin hypersensitivity, caused by the exposure and patency of dentinal tubules, can affect patients' quality of life. The aim of this study was to undertake a systematic review and a network meta‐analysis, comparing the effectiveness in resolving dentin hypersensitivity among different in‐office desensitizing treatments. Materials and Methods A literature search was performed with electronic databases and by hand until December 2011. The included trials were divided into six treatment groups as placebo, physical occlusion, chemical occlusion, nerve desensitization, laser therapy and combined treatments. The treatment effects between groups were estimated with standardized mean differences by using a Bayesian network meta‐analysis. Results Forty studies were included. The standardized mean difference between placebo and physical occlusion was −2.57 [95% credible interval (CI): −4.24 to −0.94]; placebo versus chemical occlusion was −2.33 (95% CI: −3.65 to −1.04); placebo versus nerve desensitization was −1.72 (95% CI: −4.00 to 0.52); placebo versus laser therapy was −2.81 (95% CI: −4.41 to −1.24); placebo versus combined treatment was −3.47 (95% CI: −5.99 to −0.96). The comparisons of the five active treatments showed no significant differences. Conclusions The results from network meta‐analysis showed that most active treatment options had significantly better treatment outcome than placebo.