Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 5, 2026

A Protocol of Manual Tests to Measure Sensation and Pain in Humans
Published on: December 19, 2016
Clinical evaluation of the Jay Sensitivity Sensor Probe: a new microprocessor-controlled instrument to evaluate
Joseph A Sowinski1, Ashish Kakar, Kanupriya Kakar
1School of Dental Hygiene, Erie Community College, State University of New York, Williamsville, New York, USA.
Purpose:
To compare the Jay Sensitivity Sensor Probe (Jay Probe), a new microprocessor-based, pre-calibrated instrument, with well accepted methods used to evaluate sensitivity, i.e. tactile response to the Yeaple Probe, air blast (Schiff scale), and patient responses by Visual Analog Score (VAS).
Methods:
Jay Probe assessments were accomplished using several approaches. With a cohort of 12 subjects, two clinical examiners compared the repeatability of the Jay and Yeaple Probes. A second evaluation of both probes was conducted during two independent parallel design clinical studies each enrolling 100 adults with dentin hypersensitivity (DH). In each study, subjects were evaluated for DH responses after twice daily oral hygiene with a negative control fluoride dentifrice or a positive control dentifrice formulated with ingredients proven to reduce sensitivity, i.e. potassium nitrate or 8.0% arginine with calcium carbonate. Tactile evaluations by the Jay and Yeaple Probes were conducted at baseline and recall visits over the 8-week duration of each study. Also evaluated at each visit were responses to air blast and to patient reported DH assessment by VAS.
Results:
Low inter-examiner variability with no significant differences between replicate measurements (P > 0.05) was observed with the Jay Probe. Consistent with results from previous studies, subjects assigned dentifrices formulated with potassium nitrate or 8% arginine/calcium carbonate demonstrated improvements in Yeaple, air blast and VAS responses in comparison to those assigned the fluoride dentifrice (P < 0.05). Jay Probe responses correlated significantly with all other sensitivity measures (P < 0.05). Differences between these treatments were observed at all post-treatment evaluations using these methods.

