首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Photomedicine and Laser Surgery >Comparative Evaluation of the Effects of Nd:YAG Laser and a Desensitizer Agent on the Treatment of Dentin Hypersensitivity: A Clinical Study
【2h】

Comparative Evaluation of the Effects of Nd:YAG Laser and a Desensitizer Agent on the Treatment of Dentin Hypersensitivity: A Clinical Study

机译:Nd:YAG激光和脱敏剂对牙本质过敏的疗效比较评价:临床研究

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

>Objective: The aim of this randomized longitudinal clinical study was to assess different treatment protocols for dentin hypersensitivity with high-power laser, desensitizing agent, and its association between high-power laser and desensitizing agent, for a period of 6 months. >Background data: The literature shows a lack of treatment for dentin hypersensitivity, and lasers are contemporary alternatives. >Methods: After inclusion and exclusion analysis, volunteers were selected. The lesions were divided into three groups (n=10): G1, Gluma Desensitizer (Heraeus Kulzer); G2, Nd:YAG Laser (Power Laser ST6, Lares Research®) contact mode, laser protocol of 1.5 W, 10 Hz, and 100 mJ,≈85 J/cm2, four irradiations performed, each for 15 sec, in mesiodistal and occluso-apical directions, totaling 60 sec of irradiation with intervals of 10 sec between them; G3, Nd:YAG Laser+Gluma Desensitizer. The level of sensitivity to pain of each volunteer was analyzed by visual analog scale (VAS) using cold air stimuli and exploratory probe 5 min, 1 week, and 1, 3, and 6 months after treatment. Data were collected and subjected to statistical analysis that detected statistically significant differences between the various studied time intervals of treatments (p>0.05). >Results: For the air stimulus, no significant differences were found for each time interval. For the long-term evaluation, all groups showed statistical differences (p>0.05), indicating that for G2 and G3, this difference was statistically significant from the first time of evaluation (post 1), whereas in G1, the difference was significant from the post 2 evaluation (1 week). Comparison among groups using the probe stimulation showed significant differences in pain (p<0.001). Only in G1 and G3 did this difference become significant from post 01. >Conclusions: All protocols were effective in reducing dentinal hypersensitivity after 6 months of treatment; however, the association of Nd:YAG and Gluma Desensitizer is an effective treatment strategy that has immediate and long-lasting effects.
机译:>目的:这项随机纵向临床研究的目的是评估针对高功率激光,脱敏剂及其在高功率激光与脱敏剂之间的关联对牙本质过敏的不同治疗方案6个月。 >背景数据:文献表明缺乏治疗牙本质过敏的方法,激光是当代的替代方法。 >方法:在纳入和排除分析之后,选择了志愿者。病变分为三组(n = 10):G1,Gluma脱敏剂(Heraeus Kulzer); G2,Nd:YAG激光(Power Laser ST6,LaresResearch®)接触模式,激光协议为1.5 W,10 Hz和100 mJ,≈85J / cm 2 ,在近中颌和咬合顶方向上进行了四次照射,每次照射15 sec,总共进行了60 sec的照射,两次照射之间的间隔为10 sec。 G3,Nd:YAG激光+ luma脱敏剂。在治疗后5分钟,1周,1、3和6个月,通过视觉模拟量表(VAS)使用冷空气刺激和探查探针分析每个志愿者对疼痛的敏感性水平。收集数据并进行统计分析,该统计分析检测到各种研究的治疗时间间隔之间的统计学显着差异(p> 0.05)。 >结果:对于空气刺激,每个时间间隔均未发现明显差异。对于长期评估,所有组均显示统计学差异(p> 0.05),表明对于G2和G3,该差异从第一次评估时起具有统计学意义(第1个帖子),而在G1中,该差异与第一次评估时显着第2次评估(1周)。使用探针刺激的组之间的比较显示疼痛有显着差异(p <0.001)。仅在G1和G3中,这种差异从01后开始才变得显着。>结论:所有方案在治疗6个月后均能有效减少牙本质过敏。但是,Nd:YAG和Gluma脱敏剂的结合是一种有效的治疗策略,具有立竿见影的效果。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号