The greater reduction in DH was seen in Recaldent? group followed by 30% Indian propolis group. The difference in placebo group was not significant [Table 3 and Figure 3]. Table 3 Comparison of mean difference between different treatment groups for probing stimulus Figure 3 Mean difference between different Depsipeptide treatment groups for probing stimulus There was a significant reduction in DH for all the treatment groups after each application for air blast. While for probing stimulus, a significant reduction was observed in both Recaldent? group and 30% Indian propolis group [Table 4]. Table 4 Differences in mean ranks in different groups at baseline and after each application for both air blast and probing stimulus Safety evaluation No burning sensation or irritation of mucosa was recorded during application of different test groups.

No adverse reactions occurred during the trial. Similarly, no any other adverse reactions (AE) were recorded during the investigation period. DISCUSSION DH is a very common painful sensation, which is rather difficult to treat in spite of the availability of various treatment options.[3,25] Applying a desensitizing agent is therefore, consistent with these types of DH treatment. Furthermore, Addy’s suggestion that coating dentinal tubules is effective in over 95% of cases,[1] coincides with the results of our study. Valid comparison could not be made with other studies since the present study was the pioneering randomized, double-blind, negative controlled clinical trial that compared the efficacy of 30% ethenolic extract of Indian propolis with CPP-ACP containing desensitizing agent, i.

e., Recaldent? in the treatment of DH. Nevertheless, a sincere attempt has been carried out to compare the present study results with similar studies. The present study had enough statistical power (80%). Which justified the sample size (a total of 74 teeth) and addresses the aims of the study? Distribution of DH according to severity observed in our study is consistent with Kielbassa’s observation that moderate DH is more prevalent than severe or mild varieties.[26] A mean age of 37 years in the study sample coincides with data reported by Cummins indicating that DH affects primarily adults aged 20-50, with a prevalence of 15-20%.[27] It is generally recommended that more than one stimulus should be used in clinical studies of DH.

This would enhance the measurement of sensitivity.[28] The measurement of hypersensitivity has been primarily evaluated by tactile (probing), air blast from the Brefeldin_A dental unit air syringe, and thermal stimulus. The stimuli used in our study to evaluate the DH were air blast and probing (where an explorer is passed over the sensitive lesion) stimulus. Ide, Walters, Tarbet and Sowinski et al. and have reported air blast and tactile (probing) stimulus to be the accurate methods for the examination of hypersensitivity levels.