Dentine hypersensitivity in subjects recruited for clinical trials: clinical evaluation, prevalence and intra-oral distribution

• Published in: Journal of oral rehabilitation 2002-03, Vol.29 (3), p.226-231
• Main Authors: Gillam, D. G., Aris, A., Bulman, J. S., Newman, H. N., Ley, F.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adult; Age Factors; Bicuspid - pathology; clinical evaluation; Clinical Trials as Topic; Cold Temperature; Cuspid - pathology; Dentin Sensitivity - classification; Dentin Sensitivity - diagnosis; dentine hypersensitivity; Dentistry; Female; Humans; Incisor - pathology; intra-oral distribution; Male; Middle Aged; Molar - pathology; Patient Selection; Pressure; prevalence; Statistics as Topic; Surveys and Questionnaires; Tooth Cervix - pathology; Touch
• ISSN: 0305-182X; 1365-2842
• DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2842.2002.00813.x

Relatively few studies have reported on the frequency, distribution and severity of dentine hypersensitivity (DH) in subjects recruited for clinical trials of desensitizing agents. Potential subjects (n= 48 M, 81 F, mean age 35·1 years) for inclusion into such a study were screened to determine the extent of the problem. 117 subjects (41 M, 76 F) mean age 24·9 years were clinically examined. Evaluation by questionnaire indicated that the prevalence of DH was proportionately higher in the 20–29·9 years (34·9%), and 30–39·9 years groups (33·3%), respectively. Sensitivity to cold was the main presenting symptom. Tactile (probe) and cold air (dental air syringe) stimuli were used to clinically evaluate DH. Of the teeth eligible for evaluation 1561/3136 (49·8%) responded to either one or both of the test stimuli; 274/3136 (8·7%) responded to tactile only stimulation, 779/3136 (24·8%) to thermal only stimulation and 508/3136 (16·2%) to both tactile and thermal stimulation. Of those teeth responding to the stimuli, 477 (30·6%) were premolars, 437 (28%) incisors, 415 (26·8%) molars and 232 (14·9%) canines. The results agree with those of previously reported studies in that DH is most frequently observed on premolars and that proportionately more teeth are sensitive to evaporative than to tactile stimulation. Furthermore it would appear from the results of the study that tactile is less effective than thermal/evaporative stimulation in the evaluation of DH.