View the CAT printer-friendly / share this CAT
Title Gluma versus Dentin Bonding Agents to Treat Dentin Hypersensitivity
Clinical Question In patients with dentin hypersensitivity, will application of Gluma (a dentin desensitizing agent) or the application of a dentin bonding agent reduce the discomfort more?
Clinical Bottom Line Gluma AND dentin bonding agents have both been shown to reduce dentin hypersensitivity in response to a number of types of stimuli. A statistical difference was not noted between the two materials.
Best Evidence (you may view more info by clicking on the PubMed ID link)
PubMed ID Author / Year Patient Group Study type
(level of evidence)
#1) 19678443Ozen/2009N=52 Ankara, TurkeyRandomized Controlled Split Mouth Trial
Key resultsThe results of this study showed that the placebo group pain scores were higher than the study groups. The analysis conducted by the authors showed a decrease in dentin hypersensitivity over the time with use of Gluma, Duraphat and UltraEZ (p<0.05). According to the authors, no significant difference was found among the three desensitizing agents.
#2) 10649916Ferrari/199960 teeth, 30 subjects; n=30 Livorno, ItalyCohort Study
Key resultsThe results of this study showed that exposed root dentin sealed with Scotchbond 1, with or without prior acid-etching, did not show spontaneous sensitivity after 3 months. For both Groups 1 (acid etched) and 2 (no acid etching) there was a statistically significant (P < 0.0005) reduction in sensitivity levels between the pain scores immediately after treatment and between the first recall pre-treatment pain scores and the last recall pain scores (Gluma was not used in this study).
#3) 20533627Yu/201055 teeth, n=31 Zhejiang, ChinaRandomized (teeth) Trial
Key resultsA randomized, placebo controlled, split-mouth, subject-blinded method was used. All dental materials tested (Gluma desensitizer by Heraeus, one component self-etch adhesives iBond by Heraeus and Xeno V by Dentsply, and a NaF preparation, Bifluorid 12 by Voco) significantly reduced hypersensitivity to both thermal and mechanical stimuli immediately (p<0.05) and one month after treatment (p<0.05), except for Bifluorid 12 for mechanical sensitivity.
Evidence Search #8 Search (("gluma desensitizer" [Supplementary Concept]) AND "Dentin-Bonding Agents"[Mesh]) AND "Dentin Sensitivity"[Mesh#6 Search ("Dentin-Bonding Agents"[Mesh]) AND "Dentin Sensitivity"[Mesh]#3 Search ("gluma desensitizer" [Supplementary Concept]) AND "Dentin Sensitivity"[Mesh]
Comments on
The Evidence
All three articles showed evidence that the dentin hypersensitivity was decreased by a statistically significant amount (p<.05) using the materials included in each specific study. The study conducted by Ferrari, et. al., was not conducted in a random manner and thus should carry less evidential weight than the other two RCT studies.
Applicability This CAT could be applied to every patient that receives a dental restoration. It also applies to patients that have hypersensitivity as a result of bruxism, attrition, abrasion or other conditions where enamel is lost and dentin is exposed to the oral environment.
Specialty/Discipline (General Dentistry) (Periodontics) (Prosthodontics) (Restorative Dentistry) (Dental Hygiene)
Keywords Gluma Desensitizer, Dentin bonding agents, Dentin Hypersensitivity
ID# 824
Date of submission: 03/31/2011spacer Revised: 12/14/2011
E-mail jacksonrt@livemail.uthscsa.edu
Author Ross Jackson
Co-author(s) e-mail
Faculty mentor/Co-author David Cox, DDS
Faculty mentor/Co-author e-mail CoxD@uthscsa.edu
Basic Science Rationale
(Mechanisms that may account for and/or explain the clinical question, i.e. is the answer to the clinical question consistent with basic biological, physical and/or behavioral science principles, laws and research?)
post a rationale
None available
Comments and Evidence-Based Updates on the CAT
post a comment
by Keaton Forrester, DMD, Giang Tran, DDS (San Antonio, TX) on 11/13/2015
A PubMed and Trip Database search on this question in November, 2015 found a more recent publication by da Rosa et. al., 2013 (PubMed ID 23616976). This systematic review retrieved 99 articles with 17 meeting the selection criteria. The conclusions supported this CAT with all treatments tested showing satisfactory results.

Return to Found CATs list