Presentation Title

Reliability of Methods to Evaluate Sensitivity Caused by In-office Bleaching Procedures

Speaker Credentials

PG-Operative Dentistry

Speaker Credentials

DDS

College

College of Dental Medicine, Post-Graduate

Location

Nova Southeastern University, Davie, Florida, USA

Format

Podium Presentation

Start Date

21-2-2020 8:30 AM

End Date

21-2-2020 4:00 PM

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate and compare the reliability of different methods to measure sensitivity caused by in-office bleaching procedures. Methodology: A convenience sample of 34 patients from the dental clinics of Nova Southeastern University participated in the study upon IRB approval, signing consent forms and complying the inclusion/exclusion criteria. All procedures were provided by the same operator according to the manufacturer’s instructions using Opalescence® Boost® PF 40% (Ultradent, South Jordan, UT). No additional treatments provided for desensitization. Visual analogue scale (VAS) was used to assess the level of sensitivity during the procedure, 1-hour, 24-hours, 48-hours, 1-week and 2-weeks intervals. Electric pulp test (EPT) was also used before and after the bleaching and at 2-weeks follow-up. Both of these tests were compared to evaluate if there is a correlation, and which method was more accurate in providing us with a better understanding of the patients’ experience. Pairwise correlations using a Bonferroni adjustment were used to examine the association between VAS and EPT values. A mixed, general linear model with Tukey-adjusted pairwise comparisons were used to compare changes in VAS and EPT values over time. Statistical significance was found at p<0.05. Results: Statistically no significant correlation was found between VAS and EPT when compared at during the procedure and 2-weeks follow up (p=0.824, and p= 0.160). Also, EPT did not show any difference in sensitivity during each time period (p=0.168, and p= 0.121). Significant difference was found when VAS was comparing in different time points giving us a better understanding of the sensitivity experienced by patients. Differences was found at p=0.0001. Conclusion: VAS showed greater reliability in assessing patients’ sensitivity level throughout the procedure, even though VAS is a subjective tool. On the other hand, EPT showed no correlation to patients’ experience nor VAS outcomes.

This document is currently not available here.

Share

COinS
 
Feb 21st, 8:30 AM Feb 21st, 4:00 PM

Reliability of Methods to Evaluate Sensitivity Caused by In-office Bleaching Procedures

Nova Southeastern University, Davie, Florida, USA

Objective: To evaluate and compare the reliability of different methods to measure sensitivity caused by in-office bleaching procedures. Methodology: A convenience sample of 34 patients from the dental clinics of Nova Southeastern University participated in the study upon IRB approval, signing consent forms and complying the inclusion/exclusion criteria. All procedures were provided by the same operator according to the manufacturer’s instructions using Opalescence® Boost® PF 40% (Ultradent, South Jordan, UT). No additional treatments provided for desensitization. Visual analogue scale (VAS) was used to assess the level of sensitivity during the procedure, 1-hour, 24-hours, 48-hours, 1-week and 2-weeks intervals. Electric pulp test (EPT) was also used before and after the bleaching and at 2-weeks follow-up. Both of these tests were compared to evaluate if there is a correlation, and which method was more accurate in providing us with a better understanding of the patients’ experience. Pairwise correlations using a Bonferroni adjustment were used to examine the association between VAS and EPT values. A mixed, general linear model with Tukey-adjusted pairwise comparisons were used to compare changes in VAS and EPT values over time. Statistical significance was found at p<0.05. Results: Statistically no significant correlation was found between VAS and EPT when compared at during the procedure and 2-weeks follow up (p=0.824, and p= 0.160). Also, EPT did not show any difference in sensitivity during each time period (p=0.168, and p= 0.121). Significant difference was found when VAS was comparing in different time points giving us a better understanding of the sensitivity experienced by patients. Differences was found at p=0.0001. Conclusion: VAS showed greater reliability in assessing patients’ sensitivity level throughout the procedure, even though VAS is a subjective tool. On the other hand, EPT showed no correlation to patients’ experience nor VAS outcomes.