Introduction to Dentin Hypersensitivity

Study
Country
n
Study type
Method of clinical assessment
Setting
Prevalence (%)
Peak of age
M:F ratio
Commonly affected teeth
% with GRa
Clayton et al. (2002)
UK
250
Qb
NAi
GDPf
50
3rd decade
1:1
Mandh right sextant
NA
Gillam et al. (2001)
UK and Korea
557
Q
NA
GDP
52–55.4
3rd–4th decades
NA
NA
NA
Gillam et al. (1999)
UK
277
Q
NA
GDP
52
3rd decade
1:1.4
NA
NA
Bamise et al. (2007)
Nigeria
2,165
Q + CEc
ABd/Probing
University
1.34
4th decade
1.4:1
Molars
12.8 %
Rees and Addy (2004)
UK
5,477
Q + CE
AB/PDAe
GDP
2.8
4th decade
1:1.5
Maxg 1st molars
93 %
Taani and Awartani (2001)
Saudi Arabia
259
Q + CE
AB/PDA
GDP
GDP 42.4
4th decade
GDP 1:4
Max molars and mand anteriors
5 %
Fischer et al. (1992)
Brazil
635
Q + CE
AB/Probing
Marine dental clinic
17
M: 6th, F: 3rd decade
1:1
Incisors and premolars
NA
Flynn et al. (1985)
Scotland
369
Q + CE
CWMRj/Probing
University
8.7
4th decade
1:1
Premolars
NA
Liu et al. (1998)
Taiwan
780
Q + CE
AB/Probing
University
32
NA
1:1
Premolars and molars
23 %
Amarasena et al. (2011)
Australia
12,692
Q + CE
NA
GDP
9.1
4th–5th decades
1:1.5
Max premolars and molars
39 %
Chrysanthakopoulos (2011)
Greece
1,450
Q + CE
AB
GDP
18.2
5th in males
7th in females
1:1.25
Premolars
85.9 %
Ye et al. (2012)
China
2,120
Q + CE
AB
GDP
34.1
5th decade
1:1.5
Premolars
84.3 %
Tengrungsun et al. (2012)
Thailand
420
Q + CE
AB
University
30.7
4th decade
1:2.4
1st molar
NA
Bahsi et al. (2012)
Turkey
1,368
Q + CE
AB/Probing
GDP
5.3
5th decade
1:2
Max premolars
88.4 %
Dhaliwal et al. (2012)
Punjab, India
650
Q + CE
AB
Screening participants in villages
25
6th decade
1:1.6
Mand incisors
NA
Cunha-Cruz et al. (2013)
USA
787
Q + CE
AB
GDP
12.3
18–44
1:2.6
Premolars and molars
85.6 %
aGingival recession
bQuestionnaire
cClinical examination
dSensitivity to air blast
ePeriodontal disease assessment
fGeneral dental practice
gMaxillary
hMandibular
iNot applicable
jCold water mouth rinse
Taking all this into consideration, it seems prudent to divide the prevalence of this condition into three categories: DH prevalence using surveys (around 50 %); DH prevalence diagnosed using combined surveys and clinical exams (15–20 %); and DH in patients who have periodontal disease or have been receiving periodontal treatment (60–90 %). Referring back to the definition of DH previously mentioned, the latest category might reflect a different etiology and should not be considered when reporting prevalence of the condition. Bacteria were reported to penetrate dentin to a considerable distance in periodontally diseased teeth (Adriaens et al. 1988). Such sensitivity of dentin therefore is a separate clinical entity possibly requiring different preventive and management strategies (Dababneh et al. 1999).
Only gold members can continue reading. Log In or Register to continue

Nov 10, 2015 | Posted by in General Dentistry | Comments Off on Introduction to Dentin Hypersensitivity
Premium Wordpress Themes by UFO Themes