Dentin Hypersensitivity Patents: Top Companies & Filing Trends 2026
- Concentrated at the top. The top 5 assignees hold 748 of 1,300 records in scope (57.5%), and the top 10 hold 64.8% — a small group has occupied most of the claim space.
- Chemistry, not delivery, dominates. 92.1% of records sit in A61K (medicinal preparations) and 74.7% in A61Q (cosmetic use), while dentistry-specific A61C accounts for just 2.9%.
- Filing has cooled from its peak. After peaking at 50 filings in 2018, output ran 34 in 2021 down to 26 in 2024 — a 24% decline over that span, though 2025-26 figures are still filling in.
Filing growth compares 2021 (34 records) with 2024 (26) — a three-year span. 2024 is the most recent year we treat as complete: publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so 2025 onwards are still filling in and any growth rate that ends there would understate the field. Top-5 share is the combined record count of the five largest assignees divided by all 1,300 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
This dataset tracks patent families addressing dentin hypersensitivity — compositions and methods built around potassium nitrate, arginine complexes, tubule occlusion, hydraulic conductance measurement, and relief durability. It spans 1,300 published records filed or published between 2015 and mid-2026, drawn from oral care and dental therapeutics filings across major receiving offices.
The picture is one of mature, formulation-heavy claim territory. Most activity is filed as medicinal or cosmetic compositions rather than as dental-device mechanisms, and a handful of long-established oral care companies account for well over half of all filings. That combination — high concentration plus formulation-centric claims — shapes where a new entrant can realistically stake ground.
Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
Filing trends and technology composition
Two views of the same 1,300-record dataset: how filing volume has moved year over year, and how records distribute across IPC subclasses.
Filing trend, 2017-2026
Filings ran from 44 in 2017 to a peak of 50 in 2018, then eased to 34 by 2021 and 26 by 2024 — a 24% decline over that three-year window. 2025 and 2026 figures are undercounted because publication typically lags filing by about 18 months.
Technology composition by IPC subclass
A61K (medicinal preparations) covers 92.1% of the 1,300 records and A61Q (cosmetic use) covers 74.7%; because records carry multiple classes these shares overlap rather than sum to 100%. Dentistry-specific A61C sits at just 2.9%, and inorganic/glass chemistry classes (C01B, C03C, C07F) each sit under 2.5% — signalling where formulation chemistry, not device engineering, has absorbed most claim activity.
Shares are the percentage of the 1,300 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Dentin Hypersensitivity Treatment with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about dentin hypersensitivity treatment and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaRepresentative and most-cited filings
US20140127142A1 — Toothpaste composition for dentin hypersensitivity (Kao Corporation, 2014-05-08)
Provided is a toothpaste composition for dentin hypersensitivity that effectively prevents pain attributed to dentin hypersensitivity, instantaneously and sufficiently seals the openings of dentinal tubules in an exposed dentinal surface, and has excellent sustainability of the effect of suppressing the pain attributed to dentin hypersensitivity. The toothpaste composition comprises a sparingly water-soluble powder selected from specific fatty acid derivatives, combined with supporting components to achieve rapid and durable tubule sealing.Abstract text as filed; component listing truncated in the public record excerpt.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US5578293A | Oral compositions containing stabilized stannous compounds having antiplaque and antitartar efficacy | 300 |
| 2 | US5438076A | Liquid polymer composition, and method of use | 173 |
| 3 | US5160737A | Liquid polymer composition, and method of use | 170 |
| 4 | US5766574A | Dual component tooth whitening dentifrice | 144 |
| 5 | US5639795A | Liquid polymer composition, and method of use | 114 |
| 6 | US6416745B1 | Dental composition for treating hypersensitive teeth | 105 |
| 7 | US4992258A | Dentrifice composition | 105 |
| 8 | US6365132B1 | Methods and compositions for whitening teeth | 104 |
| 9 | US20090186090A1 | Oral Care Composition to Reduce or Eliminate Dental Sensitivity | 101 |
| 10 | WO1999013852A1 | Methods and compositions for whitening teeth | 99 |
Citation counts favour older filings inside a searched corpus and should be read as a signal of influence, not current relevance.
Each row carries its publication number; clicking a row searches Eureka by that number.
Put your own technology through the same analysis
Eureka on the web
When you want the answer in the next five minutes.
The agent works the prompt against patents and technical literature, citing every source.
Run your analysis now →MCP server & REST API
When it has to run inside your own pipeline.
Patent search, landscape analysis and assignee resolution as MCP tools. Drop them into any agent framework, or call REST directly.
Browse MCP servers →What the numbers mean for a filing decision
Three patterns stand out once the ranking, the trend and the class breakdown are read together.
A small group holds most of the field
The top 5 assignees combine for 748 of the 1,300 records in scope, and the top 10 extend that to 64.8%. New entrants are filing into space where a handful of legacy oral care companies already hold dense prior art on core compositions.
Formulation chemistry, not hardware
Nearly all activity sits in medicinal preparation and cosmetic-use classes rather than dentistry-specific mechanisms. A61C, the dedicated dentistry class, covers only 2.9% of records — occlusion and delivery-device claims are comparatively sparse.
Volume has eased from its 2018 peak
After peaking at 50 filings in 2018, output fell from 34 in 2021 to 26 in 2024. That is a real three-year decline, though 2025-26 counts will keep rising as publications catch up to filing dates.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to dentin hypersensitivity treatment, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is filing, and where the gaps sit
Filing activity concentrates among long-established oral care manufacturers, with co-assignee pairs pointing to sustained inventor teams rather than one-off collaborations.
A single assignee dominates volume
The leading assignee alone accounts for 563 records, far ahead of the field — a gap that widens the concentration figures at the top of the ranking.
Long-running inventor-assignee pairs
The strongest co-assignee pairings recur 18 times each, suggesting stable internal R&D teams rather than shifting joint ventures — a sign that core formulation know-how stays in-house.
Recent activity has thinned even among leaders
The top assignee logged just 2 filings in the latest year with 0% YoY change, and several other historically active filers show zero latest-year filings — consistent with the broader 2021-2024 decline rather than a sign any single company has withdrawn.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Colgate-Palmolive Company | 2 | 0% |
| Procter & Gamble Co. | 1 | — |
| Block Drug Co Inc | 0 | — |
| McNeil PPC Inc | 0 | — |
| Theocorp Holding Co LLC | 0 | — |
| Omya International AG | 0 | — |
| Unilever NV | 0 | — |
| University of Maryland | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to specific next steps depending on whether the goal is freedom-to-operate, portfolio benchmarking, or identifying white space.
Map claims against the leader's portfolio
With 563 records from one assignee, a freedom-to-operate check should start by clustering that portfolio's independent claims by active ingredient and delivery format before drafting around them.
Explore assignee claims in EurekaProbe the under-claimed device classes
A61C and C03C sit under 3% each despite the field's overall density — a targeted claim search in these classes can surface genuine open ground faster than another sweep of A61K.
Run a white space search in EurekaTrack post-2024 filings as they publish
Because 2025-26 counts are still incomplete, re-running the trend query periodically will reveal whether the 2021-2024 decline continues or reverses once lagging publications land.
Set up a filing alert in EurekaCommon questions on dentin hypersensitivity patents
One assignee leads decisively with 563 of the 1,300 records in scope, well ahead of the rest of the ranked field. The top 5 assignees together hold 57.5% of all records, and the top 10 hold 64.8%. This level of concentration means most core compositions — potassium nitrate systems, arginine complexes, and tubule-sealing formulations — already sit under dense prior art from a small number of legacy oral care companies.
The overwhelming majority of filings are chemistry-based rather than device-based: 92.1% of records fall in IPC class A61K (medicinal preparations) and 74.7% in A61Q (cosmetic use). Dentistry-specific mechanical or device claims, classed under A61C, cover only 2.9% of records. This means most patented value lies in formulation and active-ingredient claims rather than in delivery hardware or occlusion devices.
Filings peaked at 50 in 2018 and have since eased, falling from 34 in 2021 to 26 in 2024 — a 24% decline over that three-year span. Figures for 2025 and 2026 are still incomplete because publication typically lags actual filing by about 18 months, so the most recent years should not yet be read as a continuing slowdown. A clearer read on the current trajectory will only be possible once those later years finish publishing.
The clearest gaps sit outside the dominant chemistry classes: dentistry-specific delivery devices (A61C, 2.9% of records), inorganic tubule-occluding glass or ceramic compositions (C03C, 1.9%), and organo-metallic sealing agents (C07F, 1.8%) are all thinly claimed relative to the crowded A61K and A61Q space. Hydraulic conductance measurement methods and standardized relief-durability clinical scoring protocols also appear underrepresented as distinct claim categories, suggesting room for narrowly scoped filings that pair a measurement or scoring method with a specific formulation.
US20140127142A1, filed by Kao Corporation, claims a toothpaste composition combining a sparingly water-soluble powder — specific fatty acid derivatives — with supporting components designed to seal dentinal tubule openings quickly and sustain that seal over time. It blocks formulations that combine this class of powder with the same functional sealing mechanism and durability profile, not the broader concept of tubule occlusion itself. A designer working around it would need to either use a different powder chemistry class or demonstrate a materially different sealing mechanism, such as an inorganic or polymeric occlusion route outside the claimed fatty acid derivative family.
Research Dentin Hypersensitivity Treatment in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole dentin hypersensitivity treatment corpus yourself, in your own scope.
Every answer comes back with patent numbers you can open.
Disclaimer. This page is generated from Patsnap Eureka data drawn from a limited snapshot of global patent and scientific-literature records, and is provided for general information and reference only.
Patent data carries inherent limitations: recent filings (typically the most recent 18–24 months) are under-counted due to standard publication lag; counts may be reported at either a patent-family or a patent-record basis and are not always directly comparable; classification, applicant-name, and citation data may contain errors, duplicates, or omissions; and the underlying search query defines and constrains the scope shown. As a result, the analysis may be incomplete or inaccurate and may not reflect the full technology landscape.
Nothing on this page constitutes an exhaustive prior-art, novelty, freedom-to-operate, or validity search, nor does it constitute legal, financial, investment, or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon as such. Any patent, commercial, or strategic decision should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent, legal, and domain professionals. Patsnap makes no warranties, express or implied, as to the accuracy, completeness, or fitness for any particular purpose of the information presented.
Machine translation. Assignee and organisation names originally recorded in Chinese, Japanese or Korean have been rendered into English by an AI translation step so that the tables stay readable. These renderings are best-effort and may not match a company’s registered English name; the original name is what the underlying patent record carries, and it is what any Eureka query launched from this page uses.