Journal of dentistry · 2026
Dentine hypersensitivity in the Australian adult population: prevalence, determinants, impacts, and management.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Schuch Helena S, Ha Diep H, Le Thu, Torwane Nilesh, Do Loc G
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To describe the burden of dentine hypersensitivity (DH) among Australian adults, including its prevalence, distribution, impacts on quality of life, and management patterns.
METHODS: A cross-sectional online survey was conducted among Australian adults recruited from two established population-based cohorts: the Tooth for Health (TfH) Study and the Study of Mothers' and Infants' Life Events Affecting Oral Health (SMILE). Participants completed a structured questionnaire assessing sociodemographic characteristics, oral health behaviours and indicators, DH symptoms and management, and general and oral health-related quality of life. Quality of life was assessed using the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14), the Dentine Hypersensitivity Experience Questionnaire (DHEQ), and the EQ-5D-5 L and EQ visual analogue scale. Associations were examined using descriptive analyses and regression models.
RESULTS: Among 815 participants, 67.2% reported symptoms consistent with DH. DH prevalence was higher among women than men (71.6% vs 51.1%, p < 0.001) and among participants reporting fair/poor oral health compared with excellent/very good oral health (81.0% vs 54.2%, p < 0.001). DH was associated with indicators of periodontal disease and problem-driven dental attendance. Participants with DH reported worse oral and general health-related quality of life across measures. Coping scores on the DHEQ were worse among those with DH (mean difference -11.93; 95% CI -14.13 to -9.73), representing almost 17% of the scale range. Despite this burden, 74.3% had not sought professional care, and 26.3% reported never having used any treatment; many relied on self-directed strategies, including analgesics and dietary modifications.
CONCLUSIONS: In this population-based sample of Australian adults, DH was highly prevalent and was associated with poorer oral and general health-related quality of life. Most participants reporting DH had not sought professional care, and many had never used treatment, indicating a gap between symptom experience and management.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: DH is common yet frequently unmanaged, highlighting the need for greater recognition, education, and evidence-based management in clinical practice.
METHODS: A cross-sectional online survey was conducted among Australian adults recruited from two established population-based cohorts: the Tooth for Health (TfH) Study and the Study of Mothers' and Infants' Life Events Affecting Oral Health (SMILE). Participants completed a structured questionnaire assessing sociodemographic characteristics, oral health behaviours and indicators, DH symptoms and management, and general and oral health-related quality of life. Quality of life was assessed using the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14), the Dentine Hypersensitivity Experience Questionnaire (DHEQ), and the EQ-5D-5 L and EQ visual analogue scale. Associations were examined using descriptive analyses and regression models.
RESULTS: Among 815 participants, 67.2% reported symptoms consistent with DH. DH prevalence was higher among women than men (71.6% vs 51.1%, p < 0.001) and among participants reporting fair/poor oral health compared with excellent/very good oral health (81.0% vs 54.2%, p < 0.001). DH was associated with indicators of periodontal disease and problem-driven dental attendance. Participants with DH reported worse oral and general health-related quality of life across measures. Coping scores on the DHEQ were worse among those with DH (mean difference -11.93; 95% CI -14.13 to -9.73), representing almost 17% of the scale range. Despite this burden, 74.3% had not sought professional care, and 26.3% reported never having used any treatment; many relied on self-directed strategies, including analgesics and dietary modifications.
CONCLUSIONS: In this population-based sample of Australian adults, DH was highly prevalent and was associated with poorer oral and general health-related quality of life. Most participants reporting DH had not sought professional care, and many had never used treatment, indicating a gap between symptom experience and management.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: DH is common yet frequently unmanaged, highlighting the need for greater recognition, education, and evidence-based management in clinical practice.