LETTER TO EDITOR
Year : 2015 | Volume
: 26 | Issue : 1 | Page : 108-
Desensitizing paste use in children: Boon or bane
Thavarajah Rooban1, Arun Elongovan2,
1 Director and Consultant, Oral and Maxillofacial Pathologist, Marundeeshwara Oral Pathology Services and Analytics, CS4, Bay Breeze Duraisamy Apartments, 119, East Coast Road, Tiruvanmiyur, Chennai, India
2 Consultant Pedodontist, Marundeeshwara Oral Pathology Services and Analytics, CS4, Bay Breeze Duraisamy Apartments, 119, East Coast Road, Tiruvanmiyur, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
Director and Consultant, Oral and Maxillofacial Pathologist, Marundeeshwara Oral Pathology Services and Analytics, CS4, Bay Breeze Duraisamy Apartments, 119, East Coast Road, Tiruvanmiyur, Chennai
|How to cite this article:|
Rooban T, Elongovan A. Desensitizing paste use in children: Boon or bane.Indian J Dent Res 2015;26:108-108
|How to cite this URL:|
Rooban T, Elongovan A. Desensitizing paste use in children: Boon or bane. Indian J Dent Res [serial online] 2015 [cited 2020 Apr 7 ];26:108-108
Available from: http://www.ijdr.in/text.asp?2015/26/1/108/156827
The intent of this letter is to bring to notice of the increasing use of desensitizing toothpastes (DTP), especially among children, for dental caries (DC) associated sensitivity. Currently, dentifrice makers are aggressively marketing DTP as over the counter products through well-designed advertisements. An increasing number of pediatric patients, suffering from DC using DTP have been noted off late in clinical practice. Till date, to the best of our knowledge, there is no report of the use of DTPs in pediatric DCs.
We attempted a mini-survey among 49 consecutive pediatric patients indicated for root canal treatment (RCT) due to DC in an urban, tertiary, private center. The mean age of patients was 6.85 ± 3.32 (2-14) years. Of these, 26 (52%) were males, 23 (46%) having RCT in both jaws involving multiple teeth in 21 (42%). Molars were the commonly involved tooth (64%). Sixty-seven percent of patient's parents hold a postgraduate or a professional degree. Sixteen (32%) patients reported to have sensitivity in concerned tooth within the past 3 months. Two patient (4.1%) used no dentifrices, 6 (12%) used DTPs while remaining used various normal toothpastes. The six patients who used DTPs used it for a period of 1-8 months. Of the 16 (34%) cases who complained of sensitivity, 5 (31.2%) were using desensitizing pastes while 11 (68.8%) used normal pastes. Among the 31 cases who had no sensitivity, 1 (3.2%) used desensitizing pastes. The difference was highly significant (P = 0.013).
The result of this sample mini-survey indicated that even well-educated and informed parents have been using DTP as a remedy for sensitivity associated with DC in their children. Its safety and indication for pediatric DC remains ambiguous. Dentinal Sensitivity sets in when DC involves dentino-enamel junction. With the use of DTP, the early warning signs are curtailed while the infection continues to spread creating a false sense of cure. Had the patient consulted a dentist during early phases of sensitivity, there would have been every chance of restoring the teeth.
With one-third of pediatric patients suffering from DC-related sensitivity using DTPs, its use needs to be cautioned. Large scale, multicentric studies need to be initiated in the direction. All stakeholders including parents need to be educated about this potential risk. If sufficient evidence emerges, the fraternity needs to call for judicial use of the DTP with appropriate authorities/forum and sufficient warnings beyond the minute invisible lines in the pack/insert/advertisement.
Authors wish to acknowledge the inputs of Prof. K. Ranganathan PhD., Head of Department, Department of Oral Pathology, Ragas Dental College and Hospital, Chennai.