Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Various Desensitizing Treatment Protocols

A total of 121 teeth with a Schiff cold air sensitivity scale (SCASS) score of 2 or 3 were included in 52 children (between 7-14 years). The FPMs were randomized into four groups; 5% sodium fluoride varnish (Group 1), silver diamine fluoride (Group 2), ammonia-free aqueous silver fluoride (Group 3), and hydroxyethyl methacrylate with glutaraldehyde (Group 4). Clinical evaluations were conducted at baseline, 15 minutes post-treatment, and at 1-week, 1-month, and 6-month follow-up. The two methods used at baseline for sensitivity assessment (SCASS for air sensitivity and the Wong-Baker pain rating scale for touch sensitivity) were used. Pain status during tooth brushing, pain during consumption of hot/cold/sweet/sour foods and beverages, pain during breathing (present/absent), gingival irritation, taste changes, post-eruptive breakdown, caries, spontaneous pain, mucosal swelling/fistula tract, mobility, and percussion/palpation sensitivity were evaluated. All sensitivity assessments were performed blindly by a researcher who did not know the baseline scores or the treatment administered. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 27.0 software (IBM Corp., Chicago, IL, USA) and the level of significance was set at p<0.05. The assumption of normal distribution was checked using the Shapiro-Wilk test. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare three or more independent groups that did not have a normal distribution. The Friedman test was performed to examine the difference between three dependent groups where the normality assumption was not met. Post Hoc Adjusted Bonferroni tests were performed to determine the group or groups causing the difference. To test the relationship between categorical variables, the Pearson chi-square test was applied when the sample size assumption (expected value >5) was met, and Fisher's exact chi-square test was applied when the sample size assumption was not met.

Inclusion criteria

• Healthy children, aged 7-14 years, who attended the pediatric dentistry clinic regular dental examination
• Cooperative children diagnosed with MIH according to European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry (EAPD) criteria
• Presenting at least one FPMs that were fully erupted and has level 2 or 3 according to the Schiff Cold Air Sensitivity Scale

Exclusion criteria

• Children having hypomineralized FPMs with post-eruptive breakdown, cavitated carious lesions, restorations or fixed orthodontic appliances
• Enamel defect due to a condition other than MIH
• FPMs to be treated must not have been previously treated with a desensitizing agent.