The null hypothesis tested in this study, that there is no difference in clinical effectiveness between bio-smart Shield with bioactive S-PRG filler and Fluoride varnish containing Xylitol-coated Calcium and Phosphate (CXP™) Compared to Sodium Fluoride Varnish in management of hypersensitivity in adult patients after 1, 4 and 8 weeks.~P (Population): Patient with Teeth Hypersensitivity.~Intervention-1: Bio-smart Light Cured Protective Shield with bioactive S-PRG (Surface Pre-Reacted Glass ionomer) filler technology (PRG Barrier Coat) by (By SHOFU Inc., Japan).~Intervention-2: 5% Sodium Fluoride with Xylitol-coated Calcium and Phosphate (CXP™) Varnish (Embrace™ Varnish) by (Pulpdent Corporation)~C (Comparator): 5% Sodium Fluoride Varnish (Duraphat®) by (Colgate Palmolive Company, New York, NY)~O (Outcome):~Primary Outcome: Pain due to Hypersensitivity~Secondary Outcome: Mineral Content
Will the use of Bio-smart Light Cured Protective Shield with bioactive S-PRG filler or the use of Sodium Fluoride with Xylitol-coated Calcium and Phosphate (CXP™) Varnish be able to reduce the teeth hypersensitivity similar to Sodium Fluoride Varnish?