An audit of dentine hypersensitivity treatments in six general dental practices in Scotland.

TY - JOUR

T1 - An audit of dentine hypersensitivity treatments in six general dental practices in Scotland.

AU - Chadwick, R. G.

AU - Mason, Andrew G.

N1 - MEDLINE® is the source for the citation and abstract of this record.

PY - 2008/10/1

Y1 - 2008/10/1

N2 - AIMS: This investigation sought to: (a) determine the agents used by nine dentists to treat dentine hypersensitivity and measure their effectiveness; (b) evaluate the adoptive ease and apparent success of the most effective treatment when used by all nine dentists; and (c) validate a novel categorical ranking score for dentine hypersensitivity. METHODS: A clinical audit methodology was used in the setting of general dental practice. In the initial data-collection round, patients presenting with dentine hypersensitivity were treated using the dentist's favoured regimen. Evaluation of agent effectiveness was made by patient completion of a pre- and post-treatment visual analogue scale (VAS) for the frequency (f) and severity (s) of hypersensitivity. A four-point categorical ranking scale (CRS) was also used to assess the impact of hypersensitivity upon lifestyle (L) (1=No sensitivity/effect on what I eat/drink; 2=Sometimes sensitive, rarely interfering with what I eat/drink; 3=Sometimes sensitive, occasionally interfering with what I eat/drink; 4=Always sensitive, always interfering with what I eat/drink). The most successful treatment was determined and used by all participating dentists. Its effectiveness was then assessed using the same criteria. RESULTS: Four agents were routinely used to treat hypersensitivity: (Duraphat (D) (Colgate), Duraphat & Sensodyne (DS) (GlaxoSmithKline), Sensodyne (S) (GlaxoSmithKline), Seal & Protect (SP) (De Trey, Dentsply). All produced statistically significant (P

AB - AIMS: This investigation sought to: (a) determine the agents used by nine dentists to treat dentine hypersensitivity and measure their effectiveness; (b) evaluate the adoptive ease and apparent success of the most effective treatment when used by all nine dentists; and (c) validate a novel categorical ranking score for dentine hypersensitivity. METHODS: A clinical audit methodology was used in the setting of general dental practice. In the initial data-collection round, patients presenting with dentine hypersensitivity were treated using the dentist's favoured regimen. Evaluation of agent effectiveness was made by patient completion of a pre- and post-treatment visual analogue scale (VAS) for the frequency (f) and severity (s) of hypersensitivity. A four-point categorical ranking scale (CRS) was also used to assess the impact of hypersensitivity upon lifestyle (L) (1=No sensitivity/effect on what I eat/drink; 2=Sometimes sensitive, rarely interfering with what I eat/drink; 3=Sometimes sensitive, occasionally interfering with what I eat/drink; 4=Always sensitive, always interfering with what I eat/drink). The most successful treatment was determined and used by all participating dentists. Its effectiveness was then assessed using the same criteria. RESULTS: Four agents were routinely used to treat hypersensitivity: (Duraphat (D) (Colgate), Duraphat & Sensodyne (DS) (GlaxoSmithKline), Sensodyne (S) (GlaxoSmithKline), Seal & Protect (SP) (De Trey, Dentsply). All produced statistically significant (P

UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/59149092375

U2 - 10.1308/135576108785891051

DO - 10.1308/135576108785891051

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:59149092375

SN - 1355-7610

VL - 15

SP - 129

EP - 134

JO - Primary Dental Care

JF - Primary Dental Care

IS - 4

ER -