Current diagnosis of dentin hypersensitivity in the dental office: an overview
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this overview is to consider the problems that may be associated with making a diagnosis of dentin hypersensitivity (DHS) and to provide a basis for clinicians to effectively diagnose and manage this troublesome clinical condition. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A PUBMED literature research was conducted by the author using the following MESH terms: ('diagnosis'[Subheading] OR 'diagnosis'[All Fields] OR 'diagnosis'[MeSH Terms]) AND ('therapy'[Subheading] OR 'therapy'[All Fields] OR 'treatment'[All Fields] OR 'therapeutics'[MeSH Terms] OR 'therapeutics'[All Fields]) AND ('dentin Sensitivity'[MeSH Terms] OR ('dentin'[All Fields] AND 'sensitivity'[All Fields]) OR 'dentin sensitivity'[All Fields]). Variations to the above MeSH terms using terms such as 'cervical', 'dentine' and 'hypersensitivity' as substitutes were also explored, but these searches failed to add any further information. RESULTS: The literature search provided only limited data on specific papers relating to the clinical diagnosis of DHS by dental professionals. Evidence from these published studies would therefore indicate that clinicians are not routinely examining their patients for DHS or eliminating other possible causes of dental pain (differential diagnosis) prior to subsequent management and may rely on their patients' self-reporting of the problem. Furthermore, the findings of the Canadian Consensus Document (2003) would also suggest that clinicians are not confident of successfully treating DHS. CONCLUSIONS: It is apparent from reviewing the published literature on the diagnosis of DHS that there are a number of outstanding issues that need to be resolved, for example, (1) is the condition under- or overestimated by dentists, (2) is the condition adequately diagnosed and successfully managed by dentists in daily practice, (3) is the impact of DHS on the quality of life of sufferers adequately diagnosed and treated and (4) is the condition adequately monitored by clinicians in daily practice. These and other questions arising from the workshop forum should be addressed in well-conducted epidemiological and clinical studies in order for clinicians to be confident in both identifying and diagnosing DHS and subsequent management that will either reduce or eliminate the impact of DHS on their patients' quality of life. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Clinicians should be made aware not only of the importance of identifying patients with DHS but also of the relevance of a correct diagnosis that may exclude any confounding factors from other oro-facial pain conditions prior to the successful management of the condition.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".