OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the bleaching efficacy and tooth sensitivity (TS) of a 38% hydrogen peroxide bleaching agent used for in-office bleaching, applied under different time protocols: a 40-minute application or two 20-minute applications. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Forty-four patients from Brazil and Colombia, with right superior canines darker than C2, were selected for this multicenter, single-blind, randomized trial. The teeth were bleached in two sessions, with a one-week interval between them, in a split-mouth design. The bleaching agent was applied in two 20-minute (2×20) applications or one 40-minute (1×40) application in each session according to the manufacturer's instructions. The color changes were evaluated by using subjective (Vita Classical and Vita Bleachedguide) and objective (Easyshade Spectrophotometer) methods at baseline and 30 days after the second session. Tooth sensitivity was recorded up to 48 hours with a 0-10 visual analog scale. Also, the pH values during the application of bleaching were recorded. Color change in shade guide units and ΔE were analyzed by using the Student t-test (α=0.05). The absolute risk and intensity of TS were evaluated with the McNemar test, the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, and the Friedman test, respectively (α= 0.05). RESULTS: Significant whitening was observed in both groups after 30 days of clinical evaluation. The use of a 40-minute application did not significantly influence the absolute risk of TS (68%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 53-80) as well as the intensity of TS compared with the acid bleaching gel (absolute risk of 82%, 95% CI = 68-91). The pH values did not differ significantly between groups and at the different assessment periods ( p=0.42). CONCLUSION: The use of a 40-minute in-office bleaching agent gel application produced the same whitening degree and TS that the two 20-minute bleaching agent applications did. The former preferably should be applied because one 40-minute application does not require gel refreshing.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the bleaching efficacy and tooth sensitivity (TS) of a 38% hydrogen peroxide bleaching agent used for in-office bleaching, applied under different time protocols: a 40-minute application or two 20-minute applications. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Forty-four patients from Brazil and Colombia, with right superior canines darker than C2, were selected for this multicenter, single-blind, randomized trial. The teeth were bleached in two sessions, with a one-week interval between them, in a split-mouth design. The bleaching agent was applied in two 20-minute (2×20) applications or one 40-minute (1×40) application in each session according to the manufacturer's instructions. The color changes were evaluated by using subjective (Vita Classical and Vita Bleachedguide) and objective (Easyshade Spectrophotometer) methods at baseline and 30 days after the second session. Tooth sensitivity was recorded up to 48 hours with a 0-10 visual analog scale. Also, the pH values during the application of bleaching were recorded. Color change in shade guide units and ΔE were analyzed by using the Student t-test (α=0.05). The absolute risk and intensity of TS were evaluated with the McNemar test, the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, and the Friedman test, respectively (α= 0.05). RESULTS: Significant whitening was observed in both groups after 30 days of clinical evaluation. The use of a 40-minute application did not significantly influence the absolute risk of TS (68%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 53-80) as well as the intensity of TS compared with the acid bleaching gel (absolute risk of 82%, 95% CI = 68-91). The pH values did not differ significantly between groups and at the different assessment periods ( p=0.42). CONCLUSION: The use of a 40-minute in-office bleaching agent gel application produced the same whitening degree and TS that the two 20-minute bleaching agent applications did. The former preferably should be applied because one 40-minute application does not require gel refreshing.
Authors: Uxua Ortecho-Zuta; Carla Caroline de Oliveira Duque; Rafael Antonio de Oliveira Ribeiro; Maria Luísa Leite; Diana Gabriela Soares; Josimeri Hebling; André Luiz Fraga Briso; Carlos Alberto de Souza Costa Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2022-02-23 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Laís G Bernardi; Michael W Favoreto; Taynara S Carneiro; Alexandra Mena-Serrano; Christiane P F Borges; Alessandra Reis; Alessandro D Loguercio Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2022-07-01 Impact factor: 3.606
Authors: Valderlane L P Colares; Suellen N L Lima; Nágila C F Sousa; Mizael C Araújo; Domingos M S Pereira; Saulo J F Mendes; Simone A Teixeira; Cristina de A Monteiro; Matheus C Bandeca; Walter L Siqueira; Eduardo B Moffa; Marcelo N Muscará; Elizabeth S Fernandes Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2019-03-05 Impact factor: 4.379