Evaluation of Gluma® and MI Varnish™ for In-Office Treatment of Dentinal Hypersensitivity: An Observational Study

Introduction In their routine practice, dentists frequently encounter dentinal hypersensitivity, which is caused by the pulpal nerves' increased excitability due to fluid movement in the dentinal tubules. It is treated in-office using dentin desensitizers, which reduce hypersensitivity by obstructing the open tubules or desensitizing the free nerve endings present within the tubules. However, no substance or treatment plan has ever been proven to be the gold standard for the efficient treatment of dentinal hypersensitivity. Aim The aim of the study was to compare the effectiveness of two treatments for in-office dentinal hypersensitivity: Gluma^®, a primer made of glutaraldehyde and hydroxyl ethyl methacrylate (HEMA), and MI Varnish™, a varnish made of 5% sodium fluoride and casein phosphopeptides. Settings and design This is an institutional, observational study. Methods and material A total of 19 patients with 64 teeth having dentinal hypersensitivity were observed. After isolation, tactile stimulus by an explorer, evaporative stimulus by a blast of air, and thermal stimulus by cotton soaked with propane-butane-isobutane were placed on the surface of the tooth, and the score was determined using the visual analog scale (VAS). The teeth were divided into groups (group A: Gluma; group B: MI Varnish) and respective desensitizer materials were applied, just after scaling and root planing and recording VAS scores. VAS scores were recorded immediately after scaling and root planing and at three and six weeks post-operatively. Paired t-test and Student's t-test (p<0.05) were used for statistical analysis. Results Both groups showed a significant reduction in VAS to all types of stimuli with time, compared to baseline (p<0.05). But at six weeks, patients in group B showed less increase in VAS score than did the patients in group A (p<0.05) for all types of stimuli. Conclusions MI Varnish was persistent and comparatively efficacious in reducing dentinal hypersensitivity than Gluma. But, longer durational clinical studies with larger sample sizes required to confirm the outcomes.