Pantuzzo 2020.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study type: RCT (single‐blinded, 3 groups) Duration of trial: August 2018 to June 2019 Duration of follow‐up: 7 days
Participants	Setting: quote: "The work belongs to the Department of Clinic, Pathology and Dental Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil" Inclusion criteria: individuals diagnosed with a score of dentine hypersensitivity higher than or equal to 2 in the VRS after evaporative and tactile stimulation in at least 1 sound tooth with gingival recession, individuals older than 18 years and those who accepted to participate in the study after signing of the informed consent form Exclusion criteria: individuals submitted to periodontal treatment or the treatment of dentine hypersensitivity within the last 30 days, pregnant women and individuals with decayed or filled teeth Total number: 28 participants Age range: mean age: 48.4 years Sex (M/F): 6/22
Interventions	28 patients were randomly distributed across 3 groups. Treatment was carried out in a single session Group 1: diode laser Details: the GaAlAs infrared semiconductor laser, 808‐nm wavelength was applied over the exposed root region at a central point for 60 s Group 2: fluoride Details: the application of acidulated fluoride phosphate 1.23% was performed under isolation with cotton rolls and after the procedure the tooth was dried with a piece of cotton. Application of the fluoride was performed with a small sterile cotton ball on the exposed root surface for 60 s. After application, the patient was instructed to spit exhaustively for 1 minute Group 3: placebo group Details: the placement of a layer of acrylic resin blocked the photons. The application of the placebo gel was similar to the application of fluoride. However, the cotton used for the application of the placebo on the tooth had no medication for dentine hypersensitivity
Outcomes	Pain was assessed with VAS. Evaporative stimulus and tactile stimulus were evaluated with the VRS. VAS was applied shortly after, 6 hours after, 12 hours after, and 24 hours after the single‐session treatment for dentine hypersensitivity, whereas VRS was applied shortly after, 15 minutes and 7 days after the treatment. Participants' quality of life was assessed with the validated Brazilian version of the Dentine Hypersensitivity Experience Questionnaire (DHEQ‐15) assessing functional limitations, coping behaviors, emotional, and social impacts caused by dentine hypersensitivity Details: the DHEQ‐15 consisted of 15 items distributed across 5 subscales: “constraints,” “adaptation,” “social impact,” “emotional impact,” and “identity.” The response options for each item are given on a 7‐point Likert scale as follows: 1 = “I strongly disagree;” 2 = “I disagree;” 3 = “I agree a little;” 4 = “I do not agree or disagree;” 5 = “I agree a little;” 6 = “I agree;” and 7 = “I agree a lot.” A higher score indicated a more negative perception of the individual regarding the impact of dentine hypersensitivity on himself/herself
Notes	Baseline characteristics: quotes: "There was no difference among groups with respect to participants' age. In addition, the groups were similar with respect to sex, schooling, family income, and gingival recession." "In the baseline, the pain level measured with the VRS scale was very much similar among groups" Sample size calculation: not mentioned in the study Source of funding: quote: "The study was financially supported by PRPq‐UFMG. There are no conflicts of interest" Ethics approval: quote: "Approval of the Ethics Research Committee from the University was obtained (CAAE 87761718.1.0000.5149)" Informed consent: quote: "Participants signed a consent form" Adverse events: not mentioned in the study
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Insufficient information provided
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "The distribution of participants among groups was performed randomly with a sealed envelope, in which numbers corresponding to the treatment modalities were placed"
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Quote: "For the placebo, the placement of a layer of acrylic resin blocked the photons. The application of the placebo gel was similar to the application of fluoride. However, the cotton used for the application of the placebo on the tooth had no medication for DH. Participants were unaware to which treatment they would be submitted"
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Insufficient information provided
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	Quote: "the limited number of participants and losses over the study period, restricting the 7‐day evaluation to a few individuals"
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	All intended outcomes were reported
Other bias	Low risk	No other sources of bias were identified