All of the teeth in this study exhibiting dentine hypersensitivity also had some degree of gingival recession. Most teeth had at least 1-3 mm of gingival recession (n = 15), which is similar to the average recession of 2.5 mm reported by Addy et al. in their sample of sensitive teeth. The teeth most often affected by dentine selleck inhibitor hypersensitivity were the lower incisors, followed by the premolars, then the canines, and then the upper molars. This distribution is reminiscent of the reports of Rees et al. Taani and Awartani studies, but dissimilar to Rees and Addy, and Rees, and earlier studies that reported the upper premolars most affected. Since the lower incisors are the teeth most affected by calculus accumulation followed by non-surgical periodontal therapy and because of the esthetic impact of these teeth, the lower incisors are more likely to be retained, even when severely compromised.
 The mean number of sensitive teeth per patient peaked at about 8 in the 50-59 year group, which is higher than the values reported in several of the studies mentioned above.[2,27] It has been hypothesized that dentine hypersensitivity might be more common among smokers, as they are more prone to gingival recession. However, the data from this study found no association between dentine hypersensitivity and smoking. A recent report by M��ller et al. suggested that smokers are not at risk for gingival recession, but other studies, including those of Al-Wahadni and Linden, and Rees and Addy, have found more gingival recession and sensitivity among smokers.
The previous studies (Fischer et al. Orchardson and Collins; Addy et al. Flynn et al. Cunha et al. Oyama and Matsumoto; Taani and Awartani; Rees; Rees and Addy,) reported a higher incidence of dentine hypersensitivity in females than in males. In this study, the ratio of females to males with hypersensitivity was 1.3:1; this difference is not likely to be statistically significant. About 11% of patients in the current study reported avoiding hypersensitive teeth most of the time. This figure is similar to that reported by Taani and Awartani. Approximately, 34% of patients in this study were treated for dentine hypersensitivity by dentists, and 55% had tried treatment with desensitizing dentifrice.
These figures are higher than those reported by Taani and Awartani, Liu et al. and Fischer et al. It is the author’s clinical impression, supported by some data, (Absi et al.), that dentine hypersensitivity is more prevalent among patients who have good oral hygiene practices as tends to be the case in higher socioeconomic groups. To investigate this further, the patients with dentine hypersensitivity were divided into social groups using the Registrar General’s Classification Drug_discovery of Occupations as used in the recent UK Adult Dental Health Survey.