Resumo Este trabalho teve o objetivo de comparar a efetividade das terapias com verniz fluoretado (Fluorniz) e com laser diodo de arseneto de gálio e alumínio (AsGaAl) no tratamento da hipersensibilidade dentinária cervical (HSDC). Foram selecionados 86 dentes divididos em dois grupos. No Grupo I foi aplicado Fluorniz e no Grupo II realizou-se irradiação com laser AsGaAI com dosimetria de 4 J/cm2, ambos na região cervical da face vestibular, em quatro sessões com intervalos de 72 a 96 horas. O registro da resposta do paciente quanto aos estímulos tácteis e termo-evaporativos foi realizado através da escala visual numérica. Os resultados demonstraram que houve uma redução da hipersensibilidade ao final do tratamento tanto para estímulo táctil quanto para o estímulo termo-evaporativo, para ambos os grupos. Concluiu-se que, em curto prazo, a terapia com Fluorniz demonstrou-se mais efetiva que o laser de baixa potência para diminuição da HSDC.

Abstract The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of fluoride varnish (Fluorniz(r)) and irradiation with a gallium-arsenide-aluminum diode laser in the treatment of cervical dentin hypersensitivity. Cervical dentin hypersensitivity (CDH) is a painful condition that is highly prevalent in the world's adult population, with one in six patients presenting this symptom. Eighty-six teeth were divided into two groups: Group 1, teeth treated with Fluorniz; Group 2, teeth irradiated with a GaAlAs laser at a 4 J/cm2 dose. The two treatments were applied to the buccal cervical region in four sessions, at intervals of 72 to 96 h. The response of the patient to tactile and thermal-evaporative stimuli was rated on a visual analog scale. The results showed a reduction of hypersensitivity in response to tactile and thermal-evaporative stimulation at the end of treatment in both groups. In conclusion, short-term treatment with Fluorniz was found to be more effective than low-level laser radiation in reducing cervical dentin hypersensitivity.

The aim of this observational study was to assess the degree of patient satisfaction toward implant-supported prostheses. A questionnaire was used with two scales (one consisting of detailed adjectival and the other of numerical responses) regarding chewing, esthetics, speaking, comfort and overall satisfaction. The scales were administered to a sample of 147 patients treated with implants and prostheses. The data were submitted to the Kappa statistic and the Chi-square test to analyze the association between dependent and independent variables. High degrees of satisfaction (greater than 91%) were found for all categories evaluated, regardless of gender, age, number of implants or type of prosthesis. “Comfort” was associated significantly with the number of implants (p = 0.038), and “speaking” was associated significantly with the type of prosthesis (p = 0.029). Positive agreement was found between the scales for all categories evaluated, without statistically significant differences regarding respondent preference (p = 0.735). Patients treated with implant-supported prostheses were highly satisfied with the treatment.