Dentists' perceptions of dentine hypersensitivity and knowledge of its treatment

• Published in: Journal of oral rehabilitation 2002-03, Vol.29 (3), p.219-225
• Main Authors: Gillam, D. G., Bulman, J. S., Eijkman, M. A. J., Newman, H. N.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adult; aetiological factors; Attitude of Health Personnel; Clinical Competence; Dentin Sensitivity - drug therapy; Dentin Sensitivity - etiology; Dentin Sensitivity - prevention & control; Dentin Sensitivity - therapy; Dentin-Bonding Agents - therapeutic use; dentine hypersensitivity; Dentist-Patient Relations; Dentistry; Dentists; Drug Combinations; educational literature; Female; Fluorides - therapeutic use; Fluorides, Topical - therapeutic use; Gels; Glass Ionomer Cements - therapeutic use; Humans; Male; Mouthwashes - therapeutic use; Nitrates - therapeutic use; Nonprescription Drugs - therapeutic use; Ointments; Paint; Patient Education as Topic; Phosphates - therapeutic use; questionnaire; Sodium Fluoride - therapeutic use; Statistics as Topic; Surveys and Questionnaires; Time Factors; Toothbrushing - methods; Toothpastes - therapeutic use; treatment; United Kingdom
• ISSN: 0305-182X; 1365-2842
• DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2842.2002.00812.x

The aim of the present investigation was to determine by questionnaire, UK dentists' perception of Dentine Hypersensitivity (DH) and knowledge of its treatment. A total of 403 questionnaires were sent to a selected group of UK dentists who had either inquired about further postgraduate education or had attended a course at the Eastman Dental Institute/Hospital. A total of 181 of 403 dentists (44·9%) (118M; 36F, 17 no response, mean age 38·2 years [s.d. 8·97]) returned the questionnaire. About 92·8% (n=168) of responding dentists claimed to see patients with DH in their practice. According to the dentists' replies at least one of four of their patients suffered from the complaint. About 71·8% (n=130) of dentists reported that DH was a severe problem in at least 10% of their patients and that pain from DH lasted no more than 4 weeks. Most of responding dentists claimed to be asked about DH by their patients and stated that they offered advice or treatment to their patients. Nearly 87·3% (n=158) of responding dentists provided a wide range of treatment options/advice which included both In‐office and over‐the‐counter (OTC) products. Popular responses included desensitizing pastes/gels, Topical F– varnishes and toothpastes/rinses/gels, advice on atraumatic tooth brushing, dentine bonding agents (DBA), glass–ionomer cements (GIC) and other unspecified restorations. Of the various In‐office treatments Duraphat was the most cited choice of varnish/primer options. Sensodyne toothpaste was the most popular of the specified OTC products. Most dentists appeared to understand the aetiological features associated with DH and provided a wide range of factors including the effects of incorrect tooth brushing, dietary acids as well as the possible influence on non‐dental topics such as stress. Most responding dentists believed that their advice on DH was generally effective although they did highlight that certain aspects on the condition were lacking such as appropriate scientific information including the prevention of DH and its treatment. The results from the present study highlight several discrepancies in the perception and knowledge of the treatment of DH between dentists and their patients. The results from this study are, however, reasonably consistent with those previously reported by Dutch investigators. The results from this study also highlighted a need for guidelines on the aetiology, prevention and treatment of DH for both dentists and their patients. The r