Definition and recommendations for trial methods for evaluating dentin hypersensitivity: A hybrid AI‐assisted scoping review and Delphi consensus process

BACKGROUND: Dentin hypersensitivity (DH) is a common yet inconsistently defined condition impacting oral health and quality of life. Variability in diagnostic criteria and trial methodologies has limited comparability of previous research. OBJECTIVES: To map current definitions, diagnostic frameworks, and clinical trial methodologies in DH research. Assess alignment with current best practice guidelines and CONSORT reporting standards. Establish a consensus-based DH definition and core outcome set to guide future trials. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR framework examining DH definitions published post-1997 and design of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) over the last 5 years. A hybrid AI-assisted and manual data extraction approach was employed maximizing efficiency and rigor. Data were retrieved on definitions, diagnostic criteria, stimuli, outcomes, and design features. Quantitative summaries and thematic syntheses were generated for two domains: (i) definitions and diagnostic criteria (ii) trial design, stimuli, and outcomes. RESULTS: Definitions of DH varied widely in the 72 included papers. Few studies incorporated all elements of the currently accepted definition, particularly with respect to exclusion of alternative pathologies. Recent literature introduced patient-centered and mechanistic extensions to the definition. Among 58 RCTs, CONSORT adherence was inconsistent, especially reporting of randomization, blinding, and effects estimates. The Delphi study achieved consensus on a refined case definition, minimum diagnostic criteria, validated assessment tools, and core outcome set (COS) encompassing clinician assessed, patient reported, and QoL measures. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial conceptual and methodological variation persists in DH research. The consensus-derived definition and COS offer foundations for standardized, high quality DH trials aligned with current evidence and patient priorities. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: This protocol was registered a priori with Open Science Framework (OSF) - (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/J6D7N). The scoping review was reported according to the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR).

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Periodontology 2000
Published
2026-08-25
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/prd.70079
Primary Topic
Dental Erosion and Treatment
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
article

Definition and recommendations for trial methods for evaluating dentin hypersensitivity: A hybrid AI‐assisted scoping review and Delphi consensus process

Crystal Marruganti, Joon Seong, Tanya Walsh, Nicola West et al.
Periodontology 2000
Dental Erosion and Treatment
article

Definition and recommendations for trial methods for evaluating dentin hypersensitivity: A hybrid AI‐assisted scoping review and Delphi consensus process

Crystal Marruganti, Joon Seong, Tanya Walsh, Nicola West, Anne‐Marie Glenny, Rossana Izzetti, A Pollard, Robert G. Newcombe, Rebecca Bullock, Jan Clarkson, Rupert Austin, Tom Pollard, Maria Davies, Joshua Twigg, Matthew Wright, Thomas Sounack
article en

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Dentin hypersensitivity (DH) is a common yet inconsistently defined condition impacting oral health and quality of life. Variability in diagnostic criteria and trial methodologies has limited comparability of previous research. OBJECTIVES: To map current definitions, diagnostic frameworks, and clinical trial methodologies in DH research. Assess alignment with current best practice guidelines and CONSORT reporting standards. Establish a consensus-based DH definition and core outcome set to guide future trials. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR framework examining DH definitions published post-1997 and design of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) over the last 5 years. A hybrid AI-assisted and manual data extraction approach was employed maximizing efficiency and rigor. Data were retrieved on definitions, diagnostic criteria, stimuli, outcomes, and design features. Quantitative summaries and thematic syntheses were generated for two domains: (i) definitions and diagnostic criteria (ii) trial design, stimuli, and outcomes. RESULTS: Definitions of DH varied widely in the 72 included papers. Few studies incorporated all elements of the currently accepted definition, particularly with respect to exclusion of alternative pathologies. Recent literature introduced patient-centered and mechanistic extensions to the definition. Among 58 RCTs, CONSORT adherence was inconsistent, especially reporting of randomization, blinding, and effects estimates. The Delphi study achieved consensus on a refined case definition, minimum diagnostic criteria, validated assessment tools, and core outcome set (COS) encompassing clinician assessed, patient reported, and QoL measures. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial conceptual and methodological variation persists in DH research. The consensus-derived definition and COS offer foundations for standardized, high quality DH trials aligned with current evidence and patient priorities. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: This protocol was registered a priori with Open Science Framework (OSF) - (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/J6D7N). The scoping review was reported according to the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR).

Periodontology 2000
University of Pisa (IT), University of Dundee (GB), King's College London (GB), Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust (GB), University Of Bristol Dental Hospital (GB), At Bristol (GB), University of Manchester (GB), University of Bristol (GB), Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (US), Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US), Cardiff University (GB)
Openalex Percentile: Top 8%
Dental Erosion and Treatment
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.