1057 Repeatability of Dentin Hypersensitivity Assessments Using the PDRC Hypersensitivity Probe
D.A. KELSON1, C.H. GIBBS2, and A.F. HEFTI1, 1Ohio State University, Columbus, USA, 2University of Florida, College of Dentistry, Gainseville, USA

Introduction: Previously we presented the PDRC hypersensitivity probe (PDRC-HP) for tactile assessment of dentin hypersensitivity (DH). Here, we investigated the repeatability of DH assessments with the PDRC-HP and compared the results to a standardized air blast procedure (STAB). Methods: 11 subjects with long-term history of DH completed the study. A trained examiner elicited DH using two procedures: the PDRD-HP and STAB. The PDRC-HP provided a fixed force with an explorer-like tip that stimulated a DH response. STAB was a one-second, 20 ± 2°C, 50-55 p.s.i. pressure, air blast stimulation delivered from 1 cm distance. Both methods were applied to all canines and premolars available for each subject. Procedures were repeated 3 times at bi-weekly intervals. Subject responses were recorded as i) negative or positive and ii) using a 100 mm VAS. Results: The average response-positive teeth per subject and visit were 7.6, 7.0, 7.1, and 6.3, 6.5, 5.8 for PDRC-DH and STAB, respectively. Within-procedure differences among visits were not statistically significant (p > 0.1, RM-ANOVA). An ICC assessed intra-examiner repeatability for each procedure. (PDRC-DH: 0.86; STAB: 0.96). Overall agreement between procedures, expressed as teeth with a positive response to both procedures versus total number of test teeth, was 71%. VAS scores for both procedures were compared using Lin's Concordance Correlation Coefficient (CCC). Results for visit 1, 2, and 3 were 0.34, 0.63, and 0.70, respectively. Conclusion: The results showed that teeth in subjects with DH exhibited a stable response over time. Intra-examiner agreement assessed over 3 visits was satisfactory for both test procedures. The difference in favor of STAB could be due to the higher degree of standardization, thus avoiding examiner influence. However, the direct comparison of procedures using VAS data revealed poor agreement. This may be due to differences in the physiologic mechanisms between tactile and air stimulation.

Seq #112 - Diagnostics: Local and Systemic Factors I
10:15 AM-11:30 AM, Thursday, 11 March 2004 Hawaii Convention Center Exhibit Hall 1-2

Back to the Periodontal Research - Diagnosis / Epidemiology Program
Back to the IADR/AADR/CADR 82nd General Session (March 10-13, 2004)

Top Level Search