Comparison of Flouride Varnish and Gluma Desensitizer in the management of Dentinal Hypersensitivity

Sajjad Hussain; Amna Amjad; Afeefa Batool; Saad Mansoor; Warda Zafar; Naima Shariff

doi:10.33897/fujd.v4i1.316

Sajjad Hussain Assistant Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, Margalla Institute of Health Sciences, Rawalpindi, Pakistan
Amna Amjad Assistant Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, Rawal Institute of Health Sciences, Islamabad, Pakistan
Afeefa Batool Resident FCPS-II, Department of Operative Dentistry, Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences, Islamabad, Pakistan
Saad Mansoor Senior Registrar, Department of Prosthodontics, Foundation University College of Dentistry and Hospital, Foundation University Islamabad, Pakistan
Warda Zafar Demonstrator, Rawal Institute of Health Sciences, Islamabad, Pakistan
Naima Shariff Dental Surgeon, Islamabad, Pakistan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.33897/fujd.v4i1.316

Keywords: Dentinal Hypersensitivity, Fluoride Varnish, Gluma Desensitizer

Abstract

Objectives: Fluoride varnish and Gluma desensitizer have both been used to treat dentinal hypersensitivity and Gluma desensitizer was found more effective than Fluoride varnish. This present study aimed to compare fluoride varnish and Gluma desensitizer in the treatment of dentinal hypersensitivity using a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS).

Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted in the Department of Operative Dentistry, Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences, Islamabad from November 2021 to May 2022. Using a non-probability consecutive sampling technique, sixty patients were included in the study. The total subjects were randomly divided into two groups, group A was to signify Gluma Desensitizer (Heraeus Kulzer, Hanau, Germany) and group B was to signify fluoride varnish (Duraphat, Colgate Oral Pharmaceuticals, New York). After the procedure, patients were clinically evaluated for pain in response to thermal, tactile and air stimuli on VAS at baseline and after 01 month.

Results: Amongst the chosen subjects, 25 years was the minimum age while 70 years was the maximum age with a mean ± standard deviation of 45.18±15.59 years. By using an independent sample t-test, it was observed that effect modifiers like age and gender were not statistically significant at the starting point, but it was statistically significant after treatment for both groups A and B.

Conclusion: Based on the evidence-based findings of the present study, it is concluded that Gluma desensitizer was better at controlling dentinal hypersensitivity than fluoride varnish.