Clinical assessment on application of Er:Cr:YSGG laser in dentinal hypersensitivity reduction

Jin-Yoo Kim; Che-Sun Lim; Kyu-Young Kyung; Kee-Deog Kim; Bock-Young Jung

doi:10.11149/jkaoh.2013.37.1.3

Journal List > J Korean Acad Oral Health > v.37(1) > 1057582

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Kim, Lim, Kyung, Kim, and Jung: Clinical assessment on application of Er:Cr:YSGG laser in dentinal hypersensitivity reduction

Original Article

J Korean Acad Oral Health 2013;37(1):3-8.

Published online: 12 March 2013

DOI: https://doi.org/10.11149/jkaoh.2013.37.1.3

Clinical assessment on application of Er:Cr:YSGG laser in dentinal hypersensitivity reduction

Jin-Yoo Kim¹, Che-Sun Lim², Kyu-Young Kyung¹, Kee-Deog Kim¹, Bock-Young Jung¹

¹Department of Advanced General Dentistry, Yonsei University College of Dentistry, Seoul, Korea

²Yonsei-Ha-nul Dental Clinic, Seoul, Korea

Corresponding Author: Bock-Young Jung Department of Advanced General Dentistry, Yonsei University College of Dentistry, 250 Seongsan-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul 120-752, Korea Tel: +82-2-2228-8984 Fax: +82-2-2227-8906 E-mail: jby1004@yuhs.ac

Received 9 November 2012 Revised 20 December 2012 Accepted 2 January 2013

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/), which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Objectives

We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of Er:Cr:YSGG laser therapy on the reduction of dentinal hypersensitivity while taking into account the length and depth of the cervical abrasion.

Methods

We included adults (age, 20-60 years) with at least 2 hypersensitive teeth. The hypersensitive teeth were stimulated with a pressure-indicating probe and an air syringe. The response of the subjects to this stimulation was quantified using a visual analog scale (VAS) and Schiff air sensitivity score. The patients were treated at baseline, immediately after laser treatment, and at 1, 2, and 4 weeks after the Er:Cr:YSGG laser therapy. The results were analyzed by repeated measure analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Bonferroni’s post hoc test.

Results

The values of tactile test and air blast test showed statistically significant differences between the following time points: baseline and immediately after laser treatment, baseline and first week after treatment, and immediately after laser treatment and first week after treatment (P<0.05). No statistically significant differences were observed in the VAS values of the tactile test and Schiff air sensitivity score of the air blast test between the first and second, first and fourth, and second and fourth weeks after treatment (P>0.05). The depth and width of the cervical abrasion was not statistically significant in dentinal hypersensitivity reduction (P>0.05).

Conclusions

The use of Er:Cr:YSGG laser therapy reduced dentinal hypersensitivity, especially immediately after laser treatment. The depth and width of the cervical abrasion is not statistically significant in dentinal hypersensitivity reduction.

Keywords: Dentinal hypersensitivity, Dentinal tubule occlusion, Er:Cr:YSGG laser

References

1. Irwin CR, McCusker P. Prevalence of dentine hypersensitivity in a general dental population. J Ir Dent Assoc. 1997; 43:7–9.

2. Orchardson R, Gillam DG. Managing dentin hypersensitivity. J Am Dent Assoc. 2006; 137:990–998.

3. Brännström M, Johnson G. The sensory mechanism in human dentin as revealed by evaporation and mechanical removal of dentin. J Dent Res. 1978; 57:49–53.

4. Schwarz F, Arweiler N, Georg T, Reich E. Desensitizing effects of an Er:YAG laser on hypersensitive dentine. J Clin Periodontol. 2002; 29:211–215.

5. Bamise CT, Esan TA. Mechanisms and treatment approaches of dentine hypersensitivity: a literature review. Oral Health Prev Dent. 2011; 9:353–367.

6. Chu CH, Lam A, Lo EC. Dentin hypersensitivity and its management. Gen Dent. 2011; 59:115–124.

7. Kimura Y, Wilder-Smith P, Yonaga K, Matsumoto K. Treatment of dentine hypersensitivity by lasers: a review. J Clin Periodontol. 2000; 27:715–721.

8. Aranha AC, Eduardo Cde P. In vitro effects of Er:Cr:YSGG laser on dentine hypersensitivity. Dentine permeability and scanning electron microscopy analysis. Lasers Med Sci. 2012; 27:827–834.

9. Gholami GA, Fekrazad R, Esmaiel-Nejad A, Kalhori KA. An evaluation of the occluding effects of Er:Cr:YSGG, Nd:YAG, CO₂and diode lasers on dentinal tubules: a scanning electron microscope in vitro study. Photomed Laser Surg. 2011; 29:115–121.

10. Yilmaz HG, Cengiz E, Kurtulmus-Yilmaz S, Leblebicioglu B. Effectiveness of Er:Cr:YSGG laser on dentine hypersensitivity: a controlled clinical trial. J Clin Periodontol. 2011; 38:341–346.

11. Weber DF. The distribution of peritubular matrix in human coronal dentin. J Morphol. 1968; 126:435–445.

12. Mjör IA, Nordahl I. The density and branching of dentinal tubules in human teeth. Arch Oral Biol. 1996; 41:401–412.

13. Dababneh RH, Khouri AT, Addy M. Dentine hypersensitivity - an enigma? A review of terminology, mechanisms, aetiology and management. Br Dent J. 1999; 187:606–611.

14. Orchardson R, Collins WJ. Clinical features of hypersensitive teeth. Br Dent J. 1987; 162:253–256.

15. Gillam DG, Newman HN. Assessment of pain in cervical dentinal sensitivity studies. A review. J Clin Periodontol. 1993; 20:383–394.

16. Schiff T, He T, Sagel L, Baker R. Efficacy and safety of a novel stabilized stannous fluoride and sodium hexametaphosphate dentifrice for dentinal hypersensitivity. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2006; 7:1–8.

17. Walters PA. Dentinal hypersensitivity: a review. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2005; 6:107–117.

18. Camps J, Pashley D. In vivo sensitivity of human root dentin to air blast and scratching. J Periodontol. 2003; 74:1589–1594.

19. Harashima T, Kinoshita J, Kimura Y, Brugnera A, Zanin F, Pecora JD, et al. Morphological comparative study on ablation of dental hard tissues at cavity preparation by Er:YAG and Er,Cr:YSGG lasers. Photomed Laser Surg. 2005; 23:52–55.

Table 1.

Schiff air sensitivity score used in air blast test¹⁶⁾

Degree	Sensitivity
0	Tooth/subject does not respond to air a stimulus
1	Tooth/subject responds to air stimulus but does not request discontinuation of a stimulus
2	Tooth/subject responds to air stimulus and requests discontinuation or moves from a stimulus
3	Tooth/subject responds to air stimulus, considers stimulus to be painful, and requests discontinuation of a stimulus

Table 2.

Distribution of sensitivity teeth on subjects

Jaw	Anterior teeth	Canine	Premolar teeth	Molar teeth	Total
Upper	2	1	18	7	28
Lower	5	1	15	7	28
Total	7	2	33	14	56

Table 3.

Comparison of tactile & air blast stimulation in process of time

Test	AL	AD	N	Baseline	IALT	1 week	2 weeks	4 weeks	P-value
Tactile	1.778	0.892	56	5.696^a	3.778^b	2.350^c	2.241^c	2.294^c	0.000
Air blast	1.778	0.892	56	2.160^a	1.375^b	0.964^c	1.017^c	0.982^bc	0.000

AL, abrasion length (mean); AD, abrasion depth (mean); IALT, immediately after laser tx.

^a ,b,cThe same letter indicates no significant difference at α=0.05 by Bonferroni’s multiple comparison test.

Table 4.

Schiff air sensitivity score based on abrasion length

Group	AL	N	Baseline	IALT	1 week	2 weeks	4 weeks
1-1	0.000-1.778	29	2.103^a	1.275^b	0.896^bc	0.931^c	0.827^bc
1-2	1.779-4.000	27	2.222^a	1.481^b	1.037^c	1.111^bc	1.148^bc
P-value*				0.492	0.850	0.787	0.366

AL, abrasion length (mean); IALT, immediately after laser tx. *Comparison between group 1-1 and 1-2.

^a ,b,cThe same letter indicates no significant difference at α=0.05 by Bonferroni’s multiple comparison test.

Table 5.

VAS score based on abrasion length

Group	AL	N	Baseline	IALT	1 week	2 weeks	4 weeks
1-1	0.000-1.778	29	5.531^a	3.693^b	2.627^c	2.120^d	2.034^d
1-2	1.779-4.000	27	5.874^a	3.870^b	2.051^c	2.370^c	2.574^bc
P-value*				0.818	0.329	0.812	0.793

AL, abrasion length (mean); IALT, immediately after laser tx. *Comparison between group 1-1 and 1-2.

^a ,b,c,dThe same letter indicates no significant difference at α=0.05 by Bonferroni’s multiple comparison test.

Table 6.

Schiff air sensitivity score based on abrasion depth

Group	AD	N	Baseline	IALT	1 week	2 weeks	4 weeks
2-1	0.000-0.892	17	2.058^a	1.117^b	0.764^c	0.882^bc	1.000^bc
2-2	0.892-2.000	39	2.205^a	1.487^b	1.051^c	1.076^c	0.974^bc
P-value*				0.189	0.442	0.732	0.534

AD, abrasion depth (mean); IALT, immediately after laser tx. *Comparison between group 2-1 and 2-2.

^a ,b,cThe same letter indicates no significant difference at α=0.05 by Bonferroni’s multiple comparison test.

Table 7.

VAS score based on abrasion depth

Group	AD	N	Baseline	IALT	1 week	2 weeks	4 weeks
2-1	0.000-0.892	17	6.411^a	4.582^b	3.405^c	2.700^d	2.864^d
2-2	0.892-2.000	39	5.384^a	3.428^b	1.889^c	2.041^c	2.046^c
P-value*				0.669	0.782	0.686	0.721

AD, abrasion depth (mean); IALT, immediately after laser tx. *Comparison between group 2-1 and 2-2.

^a ,b,c,dThe same letter indicates no significant difference at α=0.05 by Bonferroni’s multiple comparison test.

TOOLS

Similar articles