The Prevalence of Dentine 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
NAj
GDPf
50 %
3rd decade
1:1
Mand 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
Colak et al. (2012a)
Turkey
1,463
Q
NA
University students
8.4 %
NA
1:1.2
NA
NA
Rane et al. (2013)
India
960
Q + CE
AB
Dental hospital
42.5 %
4th decade
1.6:1
Lower anterior teeth
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
42.4 %
4th decade
1:4
Max molars and mand anteriors
5 %
Fischer et al. (1992)
Brazil
635
Q + CE
AB/probing
Marine dental clinic
17 %
M, 6th decade; F, 3rd decade
1:1
Incisors and premolars
NA
Flynn et al. (1985)
Scotland
369
Q + CE
CWMRk/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 decade in Males
7th decade 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 %
Colak et al. (2012b)
Turkey
1,169
Q + CE
AB
University
7.6 %
5th decade
1:1.5
Max premolars
95.7 %
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 %
Que et al. (2013)
China
1,023
Structure interview + CE
AB
General population
27.1 %
7th decade
1.06:1
Premolars
15.5 % for the age group of 60–69
Scaramucci et al. (2014)
Brazil
300
Q + CE
AB/probing
University
46 %
NA
1:2.56
NA
NA
Al-Khafaji (2013)
UAE
204
Q + CE
AB
GDP
27 %
3rd decade
1.3:1
Lower anterior
15 %
aGingival recession
bQuestionnaire
cClinical examination
dSensitivity to air blast
ePeriodontal disease assessment
fGeneral dental practice
gMaxillary
hPeriodontal specialty clinic
iMandibular
jNot applicable
Moreover, the nature of the questions in the survey may also influence the reported prevalence values. Nonspecific questions that identify pain or sensitivity, relying on the participant’s own pain threshold as a trigger for identifying a positive result, will exclude patients who do not perceive their DH to be a problem that requires attention (Cunha-Cruz et al. 2013).
Only gold members can continue reading. Log In or Register to continue

Nov 16, 2015 | Posted by in General Dentistry | Comments Off on The Prevalence of Dentine Hypersensitivity
Premium Wordpress Themes by UFO Themes