The Journal of the American Dental Association
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

J Am Dent Assoc, Vol 98, No 6, 914-918.
© 1979 American Dental Association
This Article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Tarbet, W.
Right arrow Articles by Fratarcangelo, P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Tarbet, W.
Right arrow Articles by Fratarcangelo, P.
Journal of the American Dental Association, Vol 98, Issue 6, 914-918
Copyright © 1979 by American Dental Association

Clinical Trial

An evaluation of two methods for the quantitation of dentinal hypersensitivity



WJ Tarbet, G Silverman, JM Stolman, and PA Fratarcangelo

In a well-controlled, double-blind, parallel study design using burnishing with 33% sodium fluoride paste and "sham" burnishing with a placebo paste, both a cold air stimulus method and an electrical stimulus method can discriminate between levels of dentinal hypersensitivity. Correlation between the scores obtained by the methods was significant. The electrical stimulus method discriminated between the sodium fluoride and placebo effects to a greater degree than did the cold air method. Use of these methods should broaden the scientific foundation and rationale for evaluating the condition of dentinal hypersensitivity and the agents designed for treatment of persons with this condition.




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright©1995-1979 American Dental Association (ADA).
Reproduction or republication strictly prohibited without prior written permission of ADA.