journal of dentistry 41 (2013) 668–674

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

journal homepage: www.intl.elsevierhealth.com/journals/jden

A practice-based randomised controlled trial of the

efficacy of three interventions to reduce dentinal
hypersensitivity

M. Gibson a, M.O. Sharif b, A. Smith c, P. Saini d, P.A. Brunton d,*

a
Poulton Dental Practice, Poulton Road, Wallasey, Wirral CH44 9DQ, United Kingdom
b
NIHR, Oral Health Unit, School of Dentistry, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
c
University of York, York YO10 5DD, United Kingdom
d
Restorative Dentistry, Leeds Dental Institute, Clarendon Way, Leeds LS2 9LU, United Kingdom

article info abstract

Article history: Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of three different interventions
Received 14 February 2013 (non-desensitising toothpaste, desensitising toothpaste and professionally applied dentine
Received in revised form bonding agent) in reducing dentinal hypersensitivity over a 2-week, 3-month and 6-month-
3 June 2013 period in a dental practice setting.
Accepted 5 June 2013 Methods: This was a randomised controlled, single-blind; parallel-group trial conducted in
general dental practice by a single general dental practitioner. Seventy-five subjects were
randomly allocated to three groups; non-desensitising toothpaste (NDT), desensitising
Keywords: toothpaste (DT) and professionally applied desensitising agent (DA). Dentinal hypersensi-
Randomised controlled trial tivity was measured using a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) to record the response from a
Dental practice standardised short blast of air from a triple syringe. Dentinal hypersensitivity was recorded
Dentinal hypersensitivity at baseline, two weeks, three months and six months for all groups.
Dentine bonding agent Results: Dentinal hypersensitivity reduced significantly ( p < 0.0001) in both groups DT and
Desensitising toothpaste DA, in addition the reduction in sensitivity was sustained and continued to improve over a 6-
month-period. The greatest reduction in dentinal hypersensitivity was recorded in group
DA.
Conclusions: The results from this study suggest that application of dentine bonding agents,
to teeth diagnosed with dentine hypersensitivity provides the greatest improvement in
dentine hypersensitivity at 2 weeks and 6 months. This reduction in dentine hypersensi-
tivity is greater than that achieved by the desensitising toothpaste tested and a non-
desensitising toothpaste.
# 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

only during the application of a stimulus (for example, cold

1. Introduction
Dentinal hypersensitivity (DH) is a major cause of discomfort
for adults in the United Kingdom and elsewhere.1 In the
majority of cases the pain response is initiated and persists
water) to the exposed dentine surface (i.e. in an area where
dentinal tubules are exposed). It has been suggested that DH is
mediated by a hydrodynamic mechanism in which a stimulus
results in an increased fluid flow in the dentinal tubules.2,3
This in turn activates nerves located on the pulpal aspect of

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 0113 343 6182; fax: +44 0113 343 6165.
E-mail address: p.a.brunton@leeds.ac.uk (P.A. Brunton).
0300-5712/$ – see front matter # 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2013.06.003
 journal of dentistry 41 (2013) 668–674
the tubules, resulting in the generation of action potentials
which are interpreted as pain by the patient.4,5
The most common form of treatment for DH is self
treatment by the patient in the form of desensitising tooth-
pastes.6,7 This approach is popular because it is both
economical and easy to use. Disadvantages of self-applied
treatments include compliance, difficulty to deliver to specific
sites, slow onset of action, and the requirement for continuous
use. Conflicting research findings make it difficult for the
practitioner to determine which self-applied product to advise
patients to use.8,9
The first line of professional treatment to alleviate DH is the
application of a fluoride varnish over the sensitive areas of the
affected teeth.6 However, this often fails to achieve an
acceptable level of long-term desensitisation.9,10 Desensitising
agents (DAs) are considered a second line treatment option for
the preservative management of sensitive teeth.11 The clinical
response to DA application has been promising with reduced
levels of sensitivity reported.12 Despite this there is no
evidence base for the treatments used with sensitivity
returning soon after treatment.
Therefore, the aim of the present study was to evaluate the
efficacy of both desensitising toothpaste and professionally
applied DA in the reduction of DH over a period of 6 months.
The specific objectives were:
(1) To test the hypothesis that the use of desensitising
toothpaste will result in a reduction in DH over 2-week, 3-
month and 6-month-periods when compared to non-desen-
sitising toothpaste; (2) to test the hypothesis that the
application of DA will result in a reduction in DH over 2-
week, 3-month and 6-month-periods when compared to non-
desensitising toothpaste.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Study design and duration
This was a 6-month single blind, parallel-group randomised
clinical trial. Examinations were conducted at baseline, 2
weeks, 3 months and 6 months. Ethical approval from the
Leeds Ethics Committee was obtained prior to the start of the
study. Subjects who had dentine hypersensitivity from one
tooth, which did not require any operative intervention were
recruited from one general dental practice of the Clinical
Investigator (MG), who is a general dental practitioner, and
were free to withdraw at any time. Details of the study were
provided to potential subjects, which included a study
information leaflet. Subjects were given a minimum of 24 h
to consider this information, raise any question before being
consented if they wished to take part in the study. The study
was conducted within general dental practice using standar-
dised equipment.
2.2. Inclusion criteria
For inclusion in the trial, participants with basic periodontal
examination (BPE) scores of 0 in all sextants were selected who
were between 18 and 75 years of age; who had at least one
sensitive tooth as defined by the subject there was no
669
minimum VAS score; participants needed to be able to
consent to and be able to comply with the trial regime.
2.3. Exclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria included medical contraindications specifi-
cally allergy or adverse reactions to any materials used in the
study; receipt of medical or dental treatment that could
interfere with the study parameters; sensitivity arising from a
heavily restored tooth (i.e. arising from pulpitis) or sensitivity
attributed to a lesion requiring restoration; poor oral hygiene
and failure to comply with trial protocol.
2.4. Groups
There were three groups of 25 subjects: Group NDT using non-
desensitising toothpaste (Colgate Cavity Protection Regular,
Colgate-Palmolive, USA); Group DT using a desensitising
toothpaste (Colgate Sensitive Fresh Stripe, Colgate-Palmolive,
USA); and Group DA who had a single application of a DA (Seal
and Protect, Dentsply, USA), which was applied according to
manufacturers instructions to the tooth following prophylaxis
with pumice and water. A CONSORT flow diagram sum-
marises group allocation (Fig. 1)
2.5. Group allocation
To achieve baseline balance, subjects were allocated to groups
using random number tables and a block randomisation
process to ensure balanced numbers in each group: (NDT)
provision of non-desensitising toothpaste (n = 25); (DT) Provi-
sion of a desensitising toothpaste (n = 25); (DA) Application of
DA (n = 25). A two group continuity corrected x2 test with a 0.05
two-sided significance level has 80% power to detect the
difference between a control group proportion 0.95 and a test
group proportion of 0.500 (odds ratio of 0.053) with a sample
size of 19. A group size of 25 was thought appropriate to allow
for loss to follow up and to maintain statistical power.
2.6. Toothpaste and brushing
After allocation all subjects were asked to cease using other
desensitising agents, such as desensitising toothpastes and
mouthrinses for 2 weeks prior to the study and for the duration
of the study. Subjects were provided with a standard non-
desensitising toothpaste for 2 weeks prior to the study as a
‘wash-out’ period.
Following the pre-study period, subjects in groups NDT and
DA were provided with the same non-desensitising tooth-
paste.
Subjects in group DT were provided with a desensitising
toothpaste and all groups used the same toothbrush during
the period of the study. Two toothbrushes were dispensed and
the subjects were advised to change brushes after 3 months.
The patients were instructed to contact the dental practice
if they required additional toothpaste or a new toothbrush.
They were explicitly advised that they were not to use any
other dental products or toothbrushes for the duration of the
trial. No additional oral hygiene instruction was provided to
participants.
670 journal of dentistry 41 (2013) 668–674

Enrollment

Assessed for eligibility (n=75 )

Excluded (n= 0)
♦ Not meeting inclusion criteria (n=0)
♦ Declined to participate (n=0)
♦ Other reasons (n=0)

Randomized (n=75)

Allocation

NDT
Allocated to intervention (n=25)
♦ Received allocated intervention (n=25)
♦ Did not receive allocated intervention
(n=0)
DT PDBA
Allocated to intervention (n=25) Allocated to intervention (n=25)
♦ Received allocated intervention (n=25) ♦ Received allocated intervention
♦ Did not receive allocated intervention (n= 25)
(n=0) ♦ Did not receive allocated
intervention (n=0)

Follow-Up

Lost to follow-up (give reasons) (n=0) Lost to follow-up (give reasons) (n=0) Lost to follow-up (give reasons) (n=0)

Discontinued intervention (n=2) One Discontinued intervention (n=1) One Discontinued intervention (n=0)
subject emigrated to America and one subject felt unable to comply with the
moved to London study requirements

Analysis
Analysed (n=23) Analysed (n=25)
♦ Excluded from analysis (n=0)
♦ Excluded from analysis (n=0 )

Analysed (n=24)
♦ Excluded from analysis (n=0)

Fig. 1 – Study CONSORT flow diagram.

2.7. Examinations 2.9. Statistical analysis

All patients were asked to record the severity of sensitivity
experienced on a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) at baseline, 2
weeks, 3 months and 6 months. At baseline and 6 month
recalls the patients were formally assessed using a
standardised air blast from a triple syringe by the Clinical
Investigator (MG); a one second blast of air at 40–65 psi and
between 14 and 26 8C, directed to the buccal cervical root
surface at a distance of 1–3 mm. At the 2-week and 3-month
recalls sensitivity was assessed by using a patient VAS
questionnaire proforma.
2.8. Outcome measure: sensitivity
Sensitivity was quantified by the use of a VAS determined
by application of a standardised evaporative stimulus
(baseline and 6-month) or by questionnaire (2-week and
3-month).
Data were entered into SPSS version 17 for analysis. A two-
factor mixed factorial (split-plot) design was used, this
included one within-subjects factor (individual sensitivity
over time) and one between-subjects factor (sensitivity
between groups). The within-subjects factor of time interval
had four levels: baseline; 2 weeks; 3 months; and 6 months.
The between subjects factor of treatment group had three
levels: group NDT; group DT, group DA. Initial exploratory
analyses were conducted to ascertain if the data met the
assumptions of ANOVA: normality; homogeneity of variance;
and sphericity (i.e. a balanced variance-covariance matrix).
2.10. Distribution of groups over time
Normality of the distribution was examined in several ways –
visually (in the form of box plots, histograms and normal QQ
plots) and statistically using measures of central tendency and
 journal of dentistry 41 (2013) 668–674 671

the Shapiro–Wilk’s test (n < 1000). All methods revealed the
sensitivity data deviated slightly from a normal distribution in
all three treatment groups across all of time intervals.
However, these deviations were predominantly slight in all
but one treatment group. Extensive deviations from normality
were found only in treatment group DA where scores were
skewed in a positive direction (participants reported very low
scores, often 0, on the VAS) at measures taken from 2 weeks, 3
months and 6 months.
2.11. Homogeneity of variance
Homogeneity of variance was tested using Levene’s Test for
equality of error variance. Results showed significantly
different variances at the 3-month ( p < 0.01) and 6 months
( p < 0.01) intervals. Power transformations work well for
transforming data that has violated the assumption of
homogeneity of variance. A power estimation was selected
for each variable using the explore command in SPSS (Version
17). This power estimation provides information about the
power required to raise each variable in order to transform a
variable to produce equal variances. Performing a Levene’s
test subsequent to this will confirm whether transformation
was successful by indicating a non-significant p-value. Power
transformations were conducted on all variables. Power
values were calculated for each variable and variables were
then raised to that corresponding value. Subsequent Levene’s
tests for homogeneity of variance revealed that variances
could be assumed equal in all groups (3 months; p > 0.05, 6
months; p > 0.05).
2.12. Sphericity
Mauchly’s sphericity test was used to test for homogeneity of
covariance (sphericity). The data failed this test ( p < 0.01) on
both transformed and untransformed sets of data. As the test
indicated the assumption of sphericity had been violated, the
degrees of freedom were corrected using Greenhouse–Geisser
estimates of sphericity.
3. Results
clinical trial. Of the 72 remaining participants 19 were male
and 53 female.
3.2. Distribution of age, gender and baseline VAS
according to treatment group
In all 72 subjects were recruited and they were distributed
across the groups as follows:
 NDT had 6 males and 17 females recruited who were aged
between 20 and 67 years of age.
 DT had 6 males and 18 females recruited who were aged
between 28 and 71 years of age.
 DA had 7 males and 18 females recruited who were aged
between 18 and 70 years.
This data is summarised in Table 1.
Mean VAS scores at baseline, 2 weeks, 3 months and 6
months for each treatment group.
The VAS scores were lower in all three groups across the
data collection points of 2 weeks, 3 months and 6 months. The
percentage in sensitivity reduction was significantly lower
( p < 0.0001) in the NDT group, compared to groups DT and DA.
Within groups DT and DA (especially in the DA group), the
differences were highly significant with scores being lower
from 2 weeks, 3 months and 6 months. The data are
summarised in Table 2 and Fig. 2 illustrates this interaction.
The percentage of reduction in mean VAS scores from baseline
values is also summarised in Table 3.
3.3. Split plot ANOVA
Results of within subjects effects showed that there was a
significant main effect of time on the VAS scores with scores
across the intervals of, 2 weeks, 3 months and 6 months (F(3,
204) = 358.167; p < 0.001) lowering. There was a significant
interaction effect between treatment group and VAS scores
across time (F(6, 204) = 79.715; p < 0.001), such that although
VAS scores were progressively lower across time in all three
treatment groups, scores from group NDT were higher than DT
which in turn were higher than DA across the four data
collection points in time.

3.1. Study groups and reasons for non-completion of the
study
A total of 75 subjects were recruited to the trial. Three subjects
did not complete the trial, two from group NDT and one from
group DT, the reasons provided were: emigrating to America;
moving to London; and unable to guarantee completing the
3.4. Post hoc tests
Post hoc tests (Bonferroni, Games-Howell, Tukey and REGWO)
provided a breakdown of the main effect of group. The pattern
of results confirms the findings above and indicates that mean
VAS scores in treatment group NDT were significantly higher
than in treatment group DT, ( p < 0.05), but that VAS scores in

Table 1 – Distribution of age, gender and baseline VAS according to treatment group.
Group Gender Age Baseline VAS

Male Female Total Range Mean SD Range Mean SD

NDT 6 17 23 20–67 47.30 11.43 40–82 56.35 13.72
DT 6 18 24 28–71 51.08 13.41 40–82 56.46 13.60
DA 7 18 25 18–70 46.25 14.62 40–81 61.33 14.65
672 journal of dentistry 41 (2013) 668–674

Table 2 – Mean VAS scores at baseline, 2 weeks, 3 months and 6 months for each treatment group.
NDT DT DA

Range Mean SD Range Mean SD Range Mean SD

Baseline 40–82 56.35 13.72 40–82 56.46 13.60 40–81 61.33 14.65
2 weeks 25–80 49.09 14.40 9–72 40.79 15.38 0–58 11.88 15.14
3 months 29–83 50.13 15.81 6–52 31.42 11.18 0–37 9.92 9.08
6 months 29–75 47.83 14.48 5–50 28.96 11.37 0–25 7.75 7.27

70

60
Esmated Marginal Means

50

40
Placebo
30 DSTP
DA
20

10

0
0 2 13 26
Timeline (Weeks)

Fig. 2 – Mean sensitivity scores by group.

group DA were considerably lower when compared to both
group NDT ( p < 0.001) and DT ( p < 0.001).
3.5. ANOVA (gender)
A separate ANOVA test was used to investigate the effect of
gender on the patient’s perception of sensitivity. Means and
standard deviations demonstrated no significant main or
interaction effect for gender. Results of the ANOVA found no
significant main or interaction effect for gender ( p > 0.05).
4. Discussion
Randomised, controlled clinical trials in a dental practice
based setting are rare. There are also limited randomised
control trials which have been designed to test the
effectiveness of DAs compared to desensitising toothpaste
and a negative control or placebo. Pamir et al.13 undertook a
Table 3 – Percentage of reduction in mean VAS scores
from baseline values.
NDT
Baseline – –
2 weeks 12.89
3 months 11.03
6 months 15.12
double-blind, randomised, placebo controlled clinical trial
in 2007, which was conducted over a limited period of 4
weeks. Ozen et al.14 showed a clinically significant differ-
ence between three different agents and that of a placebo,
however the follow up period was only seven days which
casts doubt on the validity of the data. The present study
demonstrated a significant reduction in DH with the
application of a DA application in comparison to the use
of non-desensitising toothpaste and desensitising tooth-
paste. The difference between the present study and others,
is the length of follow up (six months), which supports the
benefits of DAs as demonstrated by Tavares et al.15 The
efficacy of the DAs used is likely to be due to its ability to
occlude patent dental tubules rather than provision of a
surface coating per se which would might be quickly lost
due to tooth brushing and an abrasive diet.16
Any clinical study involving the measurement of a pain
response should have a placebo group or negative control and
this is true of DH clinical trials. Therefore, this clinical trial
included a negative control group which used standard
fluoridated toothpaste to provide a baseline against which
the effectiveness of the two other active treatments can be
measured against. Many DH trials fail to include a placebo
group so the results reported must be interpreted with some
DT DA caution. Clinical trials of interventions for the management of
– DH have shown that the placebo effect shows something other
27.75 80.64 than no effect and is different from the no-treatment groups.
44.35 83.83
This is possibly due to physiologic and psychological interac-
48.71 87.36
tions which occur in response to medical intervention where
 journal of dentistry 41 (2013) 668–674
the intervention and not the mechanism of action is
important.17,18
The measurement of sensitivity is subjective, however,
studies have shown the accuracy of using the VAS scale for
recording patient responses. Within the present study an air
blast was used as it is considered the best way to illicit a
response of the patient. It consists of a short blast from a
dental unit triple syringe at 40–65 psi and temperature
between 14 and 26 8C, directed at a distance of 1–3 mm from
the exposed buccal cervical root surface. This is a method
which has been used in other studies of tooth sensitivity.19,20 It
has been recommended that at least two stimuli should be
used, the least severe first and there should be little or no
interaction between stimuli.2 A second stimuli such as a tactile
one, was not used as the very act of using a probe on the
cervical lesion to illicit a response potentially damages the DA
coating.
Despite sensitive teeth being a common problem there is
limited evidence base for the treatments used with sensitivity
returning soon after treatment. Furthermore, the amount of
clinical time devoted to the management of hypersensitive
teeth is significant. Therefore, an intervention, which is
evidence based, simple and conservative, yet produces lasting
relief would be desirable. Equally, a DA which demonstrates
the capacity to resist further tooth loss from acid exposure
would have tremendous value in patients where the rate of
NCTTL was uncontrolled. The cost effectiveness of such
treatment when compared to that of other forms of profes-
sional intervention is considerable due to the minimum
clinical time required and the comparative low cost of the
material.
Despite the fact that the present study reported positive
results over a 6-month duration, longer term, well designed
studies are required to help to determine how often DAs need
reapplication. In addition, the authors recognise that restor-
ative materials still have a role to play in the management of
DH particularly in cases where desensitising toothpastes and
DAs have been ineffective or their benefits are short lived but
again further research is needed.
4.1. Study limitations
This study could be considered limited by its single-blind
nature, which in part is due to the fact that it was conducted in
general dental practice by a single-handed practitioner. In an
effort to reduce bias and comply with clinical trial guidelines
the study was designed so patient data were collected using
VAS scores which were unlikely to be biased.21,22
In any clinical trial in which a patient’s pain response is
evaluated, a placebo is required to provide a baseline against
which to measure active treatments against.23 This clinical
trial could have been improved upon by the incorporation of a
no-treatment control and this is frequently employed in
medical trials by using a ‘balanced placebo design’. In such a
design,24 four groups or cells are used in which the
participants are told they will get; a treatment and receive
the active ingredient; a drug, but receive a placebo; a placebo
and receive it, or a placebo but get the active ingredient.
The balanced placebo design provides a powerful method
of teasing out the relative effects of a patient’s expectancy
673
regarding the treatment they are provided with, against that of
the true pharmacological effects and interactions. To date
there is no evidence of such a clinical trial being undertaken in
dentistry, this is possibly due to ethical considerations
precluding its use but it is suggested such a design would
afford benefits.
5. Conclusion
Within the limitations of the study it can be concluded that
application of the DA tested to teeth diagnosed with DH
provides the greatest reduction in DH at 2 weeks and 6 months
when compared to the desensitising toothpaste tested and
standard fluoridated toothpaste.
Conflict of interest
We confirm that we have no conflict of interest and have no
association with the materials tested.
references
1. Bartold PM. Dentinal hypersensitivity: a review. Australian
Dental Journal 2006;51:212–8.
2. Brännström M, Lindén LA, Aström A. The hydrodynamics of
the dental tubule and of pulp fluid. A discussion of its
significance in relation to dentinal sensitivity. Caries
Research 1967;4:310–7.
3. Brännström M. The hydrodynamic theory of dentinal pain:
sensation in preparations, caries, and the dentinal crack
syndrome. Journal of Endodontics 1986;10:453–7.
4. Brännström M, Astrom A. A study on the mechanism of pain
elicited from the dentin. Journal of Dental Research 1964;4:
619–25.
5. Matthews B, Vongsavan N. Interactions between neural and
hydrodynamic mechanisms in dentine and pulp. Archives of
Oral Biology 1994;39:S87–95.
6. Bulman JS, Gillam DG, Eijkman MA, Newman HN. Dentists’
perceptions of dentine hypersensitivity and knowledge of
its treatment. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 2002;29:219–25.
7. Miglani S, Aggarwal V, Ahuja B. Dentine hypersensitivity:
recent trends in management. Journal of Conservative
Dentistry 2010;13:218–24.
8. Orchardson R, Gillam DG. Managing dentin hypersensitivity.
Journal of American Dental Association 2006;137:990–8.
9. Schuurs AH. Dentists’ view on cervical hypersensitivity and
their knowledge of it’s treatment. Endodontics and Dental
Traumatology 1995;11:240–4.
10. Addy M, Urquhart E. Dentine hypersensitivity: it’s
prevalence, aetiology, and clinical management. Dental
Update 1992;19:407–12.
11. Brunton PA, Kalsi KS, Watts DC, Wilson NHF. Resistance of
two dentin-bonding agents and a dentin densensitizer to
acid erosion in vitro. Dental Materials 2000;16:351–5.
12. Ling TY, Gillam DG. The effectiveness of desensitizing
agents for the treatment of cervical dentine sensitivity – a
review. Journal of the Western Society of Periodontology/
Periodontal Abstracts 1996;44:5–12.
13. Pamir T, Dalgar H, Onal B. Clinical evaluation of three
desensitizing agents in relieving dentin hypersensitivity.
Operative Dentistry 2007;32:544–8.
674 journal of dentistry 41 (2013) 668–674
14. Ozen T, Orchan K, Avsever H, Tunca YM, Ulker AE, Akyol M.
Dentin hypersensitivity a randomized clinical comparison
of three different agents in a short-term treatment period.
Operative Dentistry 2009;34:392–8.
15. Tavares M, Depaola P, Soparkar P. Using a fluoride-releasing
resin to reduce cervical sensitivity. Journal of the American
Dental Association 1994;125:1337–42.
16. Kim S, Kim E, Kim D, Lee I. The evaluation of dentinal tubule
occlusion by desensitising agents: a real-time measurement
of dentinal fluid flow rate and scanning electron
microscopy. Operative Dentistry 2012. [Epub ahead of print].
17. Trowbridge HO, Silver DR. A review of current approaches to
in-office management of tooth hypersensitivity. Dental
Clinics of North America 1990;34:561–81.
18. Docimo R, Perugia C, Bartolino M, Maturo P, Montesani L,
Zhang YP, et al. Comparative evaluation of the efficacy of
three commercially available toothpastes on dentin
hypersensitivity reduction: an eight-week clinical study.
Journal of Clinical Dentistry 2011;22:121–7.
19. Yates RJ, Newcombe RG, Addy M. Dentine hypersensitivity:
a randomised, double-blind placebo-controlled study of the
efficacy of a fluoride-sensitive teeth mouthrinse. Journal of
Clinical Periodontology 2004;31:885–9.
20. Yates R, Ferro R, Newcombe RG, Addy M. A comparison of a
reformulated potassium citrate desensitising toothpaste
with the original proprietary product. Journal of Dentistry
2005;33:19–25.
21. Orchardson R, Gangarosa LP. Editorial. Archives of Oral
Biology 1994;39:vii–i.
22. Orchardson R, Gangarosa LP, Holland GR, Pashley DH.
Towards a standard code of practice for evaluating the
effectiveness of treatments for hypersensitive dentine.
Archives of Oral Biology 1994;39:S121–4.
23. Holland GR, Narhi MN, Addy M, Gangarosa L, Orchardson R.
Guidelines for the design and conduct of clinical trials on
dentine hypersensitivity. Journal of Clinical Periodontology
1997;24:808–13.
24. Curro FA, Friedman M, Leight RS. Design and conduct of
clinical trials on dentine hypersensitivity. In: Addy M,
Embery G, Edgar WM, Orchardson R, editors. Dentine
hypersensitivity: definition, prevalence, distribution and aetiology.
London: Informa Healthcare; 2000. p. 299–314.