Table 3.

Included studies on treatment for reduction of hypersensitivity

Study Country	Study Design	Tooth	Severity of MIH	Follow-up (months)	Age of Participants	No. of participants (drop outs)	No. of teeth	Primary outcome measure	Intervention	Success
Ozgul et al. (2013) Turkey	Randomised trial	I	Mild	3	Range 7–12	33 (0)	92	Cold stimulus with VAS pain scale	G1A: 5% NaF varnish G1B: 5% NaF varnish & ozone G2A: 10% CPP-ACP creme G2B: Ozone & CPP-ACP creme G3A: 10% CPP-ACP creme containing 900 ppm fluoride G3B: 10% CPP-ACP containing 900 ppm fluoride & ozone	Reduction in hypersensitivity in all groups. No difference between groups
Bekes et al. (2017) Germany	Non-randomised trial	M	Mild & Severe	2	Mean 8.2	19 (4)	56	Cold and mechanical stimulus with SCASS and WBFS	8% arginine & calcium carbonate paste professionally applied	Reduction in hypersensitivity
Pasini et al. (2018) Italy	Randomised tiral	M	Mild & Severe	3	Range 8–13	40 (0)	40	Cold and mechanical stimulus with SCASS and VAS pain scale	G1: Control (1000 ppm fluoride TP) G2: 10% CPP-ACP creme in custom tray, twice daily for 2 h	Reduction in hypersensitivity in test group
Muniz et al. (2020) Brazil	Randomised trial	M&I (115 M/99I)	Mild & Severe	1	Mean 8.89 SD ± 2.13 Range 8–12	66 (6)	214	Cold stimulus and PIFS	G1: Laser G2: 5% NaF varnish G3: 5% NaF varnish and laser	Overall reduction in hypersensitivity in all groups. FV with laser better than laser alone but no difference between FV and FV with laser. Laser immediate effect and FV late onset effect

KEY: M molar, I incisor, NR not reported, G-group, TP toothpaste, SCASS Schiff cold air sensitivity scale, WBFS Wong Baker Faces Scale, PPIFS Pimenta Pain Intensity Face Scale, VAS visual analogue scale, CPP-ACP casein phosphopeptide-amorphous calcium phosphate