COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF EFFICACY AND DURABILITY OF SELF-CURE AND LIGHT-CURE DESENSITIZING AGENTS IN THE TREATMENT OF DENTIN HYPERSENSITIVITY- AN IN-VIVO STUDY

Objectives:This in vivo study aimed to compare the efficacy and durability of three different varnishes/Desensitizing agents. Fluoride varnish, self-cure varnish, and light-cure varnish were used to treat dentin hypersensitivity by blocking dentinal tubules.
Materials and Methods: A total of 60 patients were randomly assigned into three groups Group A: received desensitizing fluoride varnish (ProfluoridVarnish, Voco), Group B: received self-cure varnish (Systemp desensitizer, IvoclarVivadent) and Group C: received light-cure varnish (Admira Protect, Voco). Assessment of air and tactile sensitivity was done based on visual analogue scale scores at baseline, immediately after treatment, and one-monthpost-treatment. One-way ANOVA was used to assess the level of significance.
Results:The results showed there was no statistically significant difference in the VAS scores for tactile and evaporative stimuli between the three groups immediately after treatment. Group C – Admira Protect showed lesser mean VAS scores for both the stimuli immediately and after 30 days of application which was statistically significant with post hoc correction.
Conclusion:Allthree varnishes were effective in treating DH immediately after a single application. Profluorid Varnish showed lessefficacy when compared to resin varnishes at the end of one month. Clinical effectiveness was less at the end of one month for Systemp desensitizer, a self-cure varnish when compared to Admira Protect a light cure varnish.

研究目的：本体内实验（in vivo study）旨在比较三种不同脱敏varnish与脱敏剂的疗效与持久性，通过封闭牙本质小管治疗牙本质敏感症（dentin hypersensitivity, DH），所采用的制剂包括氟化物varnish（fluoride varnish）、自固化型varnish（self-cure varnish）及光固化型varnish（light-cure varnish）。
材料与方法：共计60例患者被随机分为三组：A组接受氟化物varnish（ProfluoridVarnish, Voco），B组接受自固化型varnish（Systemp脱敏剂，IvoclarVivadent），C组接受光固化型varnish（Admira Protect, Voco）。分别于基线、治疗即刻及治疗后1个月，采用视觉模拟评分法（visual analogue scale, VAS）评估空气刺激与触觉刺激下的敏感程度；采用单因素方差分析（one-way ANOVA）检验组间显著性水平。
研究结果：治疗即刻时，三组患者在触觉刺激与空气刺激下的VAS评分均无统计学意义上的显著差异。C组（Admira Protect）在治疗即刻及术后30天时，两种刺激下的平均VAS评分均更低，经事后多重比较校正（post hoc correction）后该差异具有统计学意义。
结论：单次应用后即刻，三种脱敏varnish均能有效治疗牙本质敏感症。术后1个月随访时，氟化物varnish的疗效低于树脂类脱敏varnish；与光固化型varnish Admira Protect相比，自固化型varnish Systemp脱敏剂的临床疗效在术后1个月时更逊一筹。