Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 1999 26; 710 – 714 Perceptions of dentine hypersensitivity in a general practice population D. G. GILLAM, H. S. SEO, J. S. BULMAN & H. N. NEWMAN Departments of Periodontology and Transcultural Oral Health, Eastman Dental Institute for Oral HealthCare Sciences, University of London, U.K. SUMMARY Recent studies have attempted to deter- males (SND =2·24, 95% CI 0·01734 – 0·2661). Cold was perceived as the most common cause of DH, in mine the prevalence of dentine hypersensitivity agreement with other studies. Only 12·6% of pa- (DH) in both hospital and general practice. Results indicate that DH prevalence is higher in patients tients reported periodontal surgery compared to referred for specialist treatment than in general 15·5% previously. Of those who received hygiene practice. The aim of this study was to determine therapy (67·9%) only 15·5% reported DH following treatment which mainly did not last 5 days. Most perception and prevalence of DH in general prac- tice. Completed questionnaires from 277 patients patients with DH did not perceive the condition as severe and did not seek treatment (75·1%). Only (115 males, 162 females, mean age 41·7 years [SD 14·36]) were collected. Self-reported DH prevalence 23·3% used a desensitizing dentifrice. The results (52%) was observed between the third and fourth indicated that self -reporting of DH is lower than reported decades, peaking in the third and in good agree- in a dental hospital population and was not perceived as ment with that previously published (45·2%), and a major dental problem by most patients in a general significantly more females complained of DH than dental practice population. Introduction Dentine hypersensitivity (DH) may be defined as a transient pain arising from exposed dentine typically in response to chemical, thermal, tactile or osmotic stim- uli which cannot be explained by any other dental defect or pathology (Addy et al., 1985). The reported prevalence of the condition is 8–35% depending on the population studied (Gillam, 1992; Gillam et al., 1994). Recent studies have examined the prevalence of DH in a group of patients attending a dental hospital (Chabanski et al., 1996) and a general dental clinic (Gillam et al., 1996). These studies indicate that dis- comfort arising from DH was not considered as severe by most subjects and as a consequence they did not self-treat or seek treatment by their dentist. This study aimed to correlate these findings with the perception and prevalence of DH in a general dental practice population. Material and methods Patients who were regular attenders in three general dental (NHS) practices were asked to complete a ques- tionnaire on dentine hypersensitivity (DH) during a routine visit. The questionnaires were handed out by the receptionist at each of the three practices. The questionnaire comprised seventeen questions: Ques- tions 1–7 were related to pain or discomfort experi- enced by the patient: presence, location, degree of severity, causal agents, duration and history. Questions 8 – 13 were related to oral hygiene habits: frequency, past treatment, toothpaste brand and type and diet. Questions 14 – 17 evaluated the relationship between periodontal treatment and discomfort following the treatment. Data analysis Frequency distribution and cross-tabulation tables © 1999 Blackwell Science Ltd 710