Method: Subjects who had at least one tooth with sound exposed dentine on cervical buccal surface exhibiting hypersensitivity were recruited from non-dental students and staff of The University of Hong Kong. Subjects were randomly assigned to the in-office treatment or home-use toothpaste group after receiving scaling at baseline. Tactile and thermal stimuli assessments were performed prior to the treatment at baseline and at week 4 and 12 by a blinded examiner. Responses of subject to both stimuli were recorded using a VAS scale (0 – 10).
Result: Among the 55 subjects recruited at baseline, 8 (14%) did not attend the week 12 assessment. Among the remaining 47 subjects (in office: 24; home-use: 23), their mean age was 45. 2 years and 29 (61.7%) were female. Background characteristics and the responses to both hypersensitivity assessments were not statistically different between the two groups at baseline.
Reponses to both hypersensitivity assessments in the in-office treatment group showed no statistical significant difference between baseline and week 12 (tactile: 1.8 vs. 0.9; cold: 5.5 vs. 5.3, both p>0.05), while there were significant improvements in responses to both assessments in the toothpaste group between baseline and week 12 (tactile: 2.1 vs. 0.9; cold: 5.8 vs. 3.5; both p<0.05). There was a significant difference in the change in thermal assessment between the two groups (in-office: -0.2 vs. home-use: -2.2, p<0.05) but not in the tactile hypersensitivity assessment (in-office: -0.9 vs. home-use: -1.1, p>0.05).
Conclusion: Daily use of the desensitizing toothpaste was able to reduce dentine hypersensitivity up to 12 weeks but a single in-office application of the desensitizing prophylaxis paste was not.