Please activate JavaScript!
Please install Adobe Flash Player, click here for download
ePaper created 2017-06-02, 10:40:19 | version 1.38.0
O z o n e t r e a t m e n t f o r d e n t i n a l h y p e r s e n s i t i v i t y Table 1 Parameter Groups NRS Paints Median IQR 25 IQR 75 T0 T1 T2 T3 T4 FU 15 days FU 1 month FU 2 month FU 3 month FU 4 month FU 5 month FU 6 month 7.0 2.0 . . . 2.0 2.0 .5 .5 2.5 2.0 .0 7.0 .0 . . . .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 8.0 4.5 . . . 5.0 5.8 3.0 4.5 5.8 5.8 4.0 Number Median N = 20 N = 20 N = 0 N = 0 N = 0 N = 20 N = 20 N = 20 N = 20 N = 20 N = 16 N = 5 7.5 6.5 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.5 2.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 .0 Ozone IQR 25 IQR 75 5.3 5.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 1.3 1.0 .3 .0 .0 .0 .0 8.8 8.0 7.0 6.0 5.8 4.8 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 1.0 DIFF. (Mann Whitney) NS p < 0.000 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS Number N = 20 N = 20 N = 20 N = 20 N = 20 N = 20 N = 20 N = 20 N = 20 N = 20 N = 19 N = 7 DIFF. Íp < 0.024 p < 0.000 IQR = Interquartile ranges; Number = Number of patients evaluated for time; DIFF = Differences between groups (Mann Whitney); NS = Statistically not significant. an average age of 49.0 ± 17.5 (range: 22.0–85.0): – Varnish group: 20 patients, with an average motic stimuli. – Eleven patients (27.5%) reported using an elec- age of 50.7 ± 15.2 (range 22.0-73.0); tric toothbrush. – Ozone group: 20 patients, with an average age – Two patients (5%) reported having undergone of 47.3 ± 19.8 (range 22.0-85.0). a dental whitening treatment. Table 1 Trend of NRS values within the two groups at the various time points. The t-test for equality of the median demon- strated that age was uniformly distributed in both groups (p < 0.547). We report the descriptive analysis with re- spect to the clinical examination and the ques- tionnaire answers: – Twenty-three patients (57.5%) had at least one gingival recession of > 3 mm in the area of re- ported hypersensitivity. – Twelve patients (30%) had bacterial plaque in the area of reported hypersensitivity. – Twelve patients (30%) had abrasion in the area of reported hypersensitivity. – Ten patients (25%) had periodontal pocket depths of > 3.5 mm at the level of the hyper- sensitive tooth. – Thirty-eight patients (95%) reported pain due to cold stimuli. – Five patients (12.5%) reported pain due to hot stimuli. – Twenty-one patients (52.5%) reported pain due to mechanical stimuli. – Ten patients (25%) reported pain as a result of forced inhalation through gritted teeth. – Eight patients (20%) reported pain due to os- – Three patients (7.5%) reported having under- gone periodontal surgery. – Nine patients (22.5%) reported consuming acidic foods or beverages frequently. The severity of the dentinal hypersensitivity reported by patients was evaluated according the NRS at the following times: T0, T1, T2, T3, T4 and FU1, FU2, FU3, FU4, FU5, FU6, FU7. Ozone group patients were seen once a week for four consecutive weeks (T1, T2, T3, T4) and later for controls at FU1, FU2, FU3, FU4, FU5, FU6, and FU7. At T0, the NRS in the ozone group was 7.0 (7.0–8.0) and 7.5 (5.3–8.8) in the paint group. Therefore, both groups started at a high degree of pain and were comparable in dentinal hypersensitivity at baseline. Evaluat- ing the trend of NRS values at the various time points within the individual groups using the Friedman test, a gradual improvement of the symptoms was registered in the paint group (p < 0.024) and in the ozone group (p < 0.000). Considering the variation in NRS values within groups before and after the specific treatment, the following results were registered, as re- ported in Table 1. Journal of Oral Science & Rehabilitation Volume 3 | Issue 2/2017 21