Methods: Patients from a public hospital in Beijing received non-surgical periodontal instrumentation. They were then randomly allocated to receive either a desensitizing paste (Sensitive Pro-Relief, Colgate; Test: 12 patients) or a non-fluoridated, low-abrasive control paste (Mira-Clin, Hager Werken, Germany; Control: 14 patients). At baseline, periodontal measures and visual analogue scale (VAS; 0-100) elicited by a tactile (TS) and evaporative stimuli (ES) using a probe and airblast respectively, were recorded. The VAS assessments were repeated at one week (W1) and one month (M1) after the treatment. Analysis was done on periodontally diseased non-molar teeth with PD>5mm, initially not sensitive, vitality positive and no other dental pathologies. The mean VAS scores were compared using a Mann-Whitney U Test.
Results: At all the time points, VAS scores were generally low. Except for one tooth, all of the teeth had VAS scores less than 1/3 of the maximum. In all patients, baseline VAS score were 0.0. After treatment, the response to TS at W1 and M1 in the control group was VAS 2.1 and 2.41, and meanwhile in the test group the score was VAS 0.27 and 0.23, respectively. The response to ES at W1 and M1 in the control group was VAS 6.74 and 2.63, while in the test group the score was VAS 3.26 and 1.71, respectively.
Conclusions: No statistically significant difference exists between the test and control paste in reducing dentine hypersensitivity after non-surgical periodontal treatment. Although a benefit of slightly less pain was noted after using the test paste. Further studies are warranted to confirm the current findings.