Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect of propolis and gluma desensitisers on the management of dentin hypersensitivity.
METHODS: The single-blind, randomised controlled trial was conducted at the Department of Operative Dentistry, Dr Ishrat ul Ebad Khan Institute of Oral Health Sciences, Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi, from October 2020 to September 2021, and comprised patients with dentin hypersensitivity who had pain scores of at least 2 on the visual analogue scale. The teeth were randomised into propolis group A and Gluma group B. Baseline pain scores were assessed using visual analogue scale and Schiff\'s sensitivity scores and compared with scores immediately after the intervention, and then after one week and one month of the intervention. Data was analysed using SPSS 23.
RESULTS: Of the 22 patients, 12(54.5%) were females and 10(45.4%) were males. Of the 80 teeth, there were 40(50%) in each of the 2 groups. Significant reduction was observed in dentin hypersensitivity immediately after the application of the desensitising agents (p<0.05). However, after one month, Gluma was more effective than propolis (p<0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Both Gluma and propolis were found to be effective desensitising agents, but the effectiveness of propolis decreased over one month.
UNASSIGNED: Clinical Trials.gov: NCT04819867.
METHODS: The single-blind, randomised controlled trial was conducted at the Department of Operative Dentistry, Dr Ishrat ul Ebad Khan Institute of Oral Health Sciences, Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi, from October 2020 to September 2021, and comprised patients with dentin hypersensitivity who had pain scores of at least 2 on the visual analogue scale. The teeth were randomised into propolis group A and Gluma group B. Baseline pain scores were assessed using visual analogue scale and Schiff\'s sensitivity scores and compared with scores immediately after the intervention, and then after one week and one month of the intervention. Data was analysed using SPSS 23.
RESULTS: Of the 22 patients, 12(54.5%) were females and 10(45.4%) were males. Of the 80 teeth, there were 40(50%) in each of the 2 groups. Significant reduction was observed in dentin hypersensitivity immediately after the application of the desensitising agents (p<0.05). However, after one month, Gluma was more effective than propolis (p<0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Both Gluma and propolis were found to be effective desensitising agents, but the effectiveness of propolis decreased over one month.
UNASSIGNED: Clinical Trials.gov: NCT04819867.
摘要：
目的：比较蜂胶和gluma脱敏剂对牙本质过敏的治疗效果。
方法：单盲，随机对照试验在牙科手术部进行，IshratulEbadKhan口腔健康科学研究所博士，陶氏健康科学大学，卡拉奇,从2020年10月至2021年9月，包括牙本质过敏症患者，其疼痛评分在视觉模拟量表上至少为2分。将牙齿随机分为蜂胶A组和GlumaB组，使用视觉模拟评分和Schiff's敏感性评分评估基线疼痛评分，并与干预后立即评分进行比较。然后经过一周零一个月的干预。数据采用SPSS23进行分析。
结果：在22例患者中，女性12人（54.5%），男性10人（45.4%）。在80颗牙齿中，两组各40例(50%).在施用脱敏剂后立即观察到牙本质过敏的显著降低(p<0.05)。然而,一个月后,Gluma比蜂胶更有效(p<0.05)。
结论：发现Gluma和蜂胶都是有效的脱敏剂，但是蜂胶的有效性在一个月内下降。
■临床试验：NCT04819867。
方法：单盲，随机对照试验在牙科手术部进行，IshratulEbadKhan口腔健康科学研究所博士，陶氏健康科学大学，卡拉奇,从2020年10月至2021年9月，包括牙本质过敏症患者，其疼痛评分在视觉模拟量表上至少为2分。将牙齿随机分为蜂胶A组和GlumaB组，使用视觉模拟评分和Schiff's敏感性评分评估基线疼痛评分，并与干预后立即评分进行比较。然后经过一周零一个月的干预。数据采用SPSS23进行分析。
结果：在22例患者中，女性12人（54.5%），男性10人（45.4%）。在80颗牙齿中，两组各40例(50%).在施用脱敏剂后立即观察到牙本质过敏的显著降低(p<0.05)。然而,一个月后,Gluma比蜂胶更有效(p<0.05)。
结论：发现Gluma和蜂胶都是有效的脱敏剂，但是蜂胶的有效性在一个月内下降。
■临床试验：NCT04819867。
