Efficacy of Lasers, Propolis-Based Agent, and Sham for Dentine Hypersensitivity

Comparison of Nd:YAG Laser, Diode Laser, Herbal Propolis-Based Dentin Barrier Agent, and Sham Application in the Treatment of Dentine Hypersensitivity: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

Dentine hypersensitivity is a common clinical problem. Although Nd:YAG lasers, diode lasers, and topical desensitizing agents are widely utilized, long-term comparative evidence regarding their clinical efficacy remains limited. This prospective, randomized, parallel-arm, evaluator-blind, sham-controlled clinical trial evaluated and compared the 12-month clinical performance of an Nd:YAG laser, a diode laser, a herbal propolis-based dentin barrier agent, and a sham application.

This study was conducted as a prospective, randomized, parallel-arm, evaluator-blinded, sham-controlled clinical trial to evaluate and compare the clinical efficacy of four different treatment modalities for dentine hypersensitivity over a 6-month follow-up period.

A total of 140 patients who met the eligibility criteria were enrolled and randomly allocated into four equal groups (n=35 per group) using a block randomization method with a 1:1:1:1 allocation ratio. The intervention groups were assigned as follows:

Group 1 received Nd:YAG laser application.

Group 2 received Diode laser application.

Group 3 received a topical application of a herbal propolis-based dentin barrier agent.

Group 4 received a sham (placebo) application to simulate the treatment experience without delivering any active laser or therapeutic agent benefits.

Clinical evaluations were performed at baseline, immediately post-treatment, 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months. The primary outcome was the change in pain intensity measured by the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) following a controlled air blast stimulus from baseline to 6 months. Secondary outcomes included changes in the Schiff Cold Air Sensitivity Scale, tactile sensitivity scores, patient satisfaction levels, the documentation of any adverse events, and the need for additional treatment during the 6-month period. To ensure objectivity, all clinical assessments and statistical analyses were performed by researchers who were fully blinded to the treatment allocations.

Inclusion Criteria:

• Patients aged between 18 and 65 years.
• Presence of at least two hypersensitive teeth.
• Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score of 4 or higher (VAS >= 4) following stimulus.
• Schiff Cold Air Sensitivity Scale score of 2 or higher (Schiff >= 2).
• Presence of vital teeth in the target area.
• Patient is willing and able to provide written informed consent prior to study initiation.

Exclusion Criteria:

• Pregnancy or lactation.
• Presence of active periodontal disease in the target area.
• Teeth with dental caries, deep restorations, or cracked tooth syndrome.
• Endodontically treated teeth.
• History of allergy or hypersensitivity related to the materials, products, or chemical agents used in the study.