Bleaching efficacy of in-office dental bleaching with different application protocols: a single-blind randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: This randomized controlled trial aimed to evaluate the equivalence in the color change, adverse effects, self-perception (AS) and the impact on oral condition (IO) of participants submitted to different application protocols of in-office dental bleaching. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 165 participants were bleached with a 35% hydrogen peroxide gel (Total Blanc Office One-Step, DFL), according to the following protocols: (1) 2 applications of 20-min each (2 × 20 min); (2) 1 × 40-min and; (3) 1 × 30-min. The color change was evaluated with the Vita Easyshade spectrophotometer, Vita Classical and Vita Bleachedguide scales. The intensity and risk of tooth sensitivity (TS) and gingival irritation (GI) were recorded using a 0-10 visual analogue scale (VAS). AS and IO was assessed before and after the bleaching procedure using the Orofacial Aesthetic Scale and Oral Health Impact Profile-14, respectively. RESULTS: Equivalent color change were observed (p < 0.001), with no significant difference between groups. The group 2 × 20 min presented the highest risk of TS (76%, 95% CI 63 to 85), compared to the 1 × 30 min (p < 0.04). The intensity of TS and GI and the risk of GI was similar between groups (p > 0.31). Irrespectively of the group (p = 0.32), significant improvements were observed for all items of AS and IO after bleaching (p < 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: The 1 × 30 min protocol produced equivalent color change to the other bleaching protocols with reduced risk of TS and shorter application time. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: A more simplified application regimen of a single application of 30 min yields effective bleaching and patient satisfaction while minimizing undesirable side effects and improving patient satisfaction.

Effect of gingival barrier brands on operator perception, cervical adaptation, and patient comfort during in-office tooth bleaching: a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Light-cured resins are widely used as gingival barriers to protect the gums from highly concentrated peroxides used in tooth bleaching. The impact of barrier brand on clinical outcomes is typically considered negligible. However, there is limited evidence on the effects of different brands on operator experience, barrier adaptation, and patient comfort. OBJECTIVE: This clinical trial assessed the impact of four commercial gingival barrier brands (Opaldam, Topdam, Lysadam, and Maxdam) on operator perception, adaptation quality, and patient comfort. METHODS: Twenty-one undergraduate students placed gingival barriers in a randomized sequence using blinded syringes. Photographs of the barriers were taken from frontal and incisal perspectives. After bleaching procedures, operators rated handling features and safety using Likert scale forms. Two experienced evaluators independently assessed barrier adaptation quality on a scale from 1 (perfect) to 5 (unacceptable). The absolute risk of barrier-induced discomfort was recorded. Data were analyzed using Friedman and Chi-square tests (α = 0.05). RESULTS: Opaldam and Topdam received the highest scores in most handling features, except for removal, which was similar among all brands. No significant difference was observed in barrier adaptation quality between the evaluated brands. Discomforts were mainly reported in the upper dental arch, with Maxdam having the highest absolute risk (35% for this arch and 24% overall). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that gingival barrier brands can influence operator perception and patient comfort. Opaldam and Topdam were preferred by operators, but all brands demonstrated comparable adaptation quality. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was nested in a randomized clinical trial registered in the Brazilian Clinical Trials Registry under identification number RBR-9gtr9sc.

Effect of an experimental desensitizing gel on bleaching-induced tooth sensitivity after in-office bleaching-a double-blind, randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the risk and intensity of tooth sensitivity (TS), and the efficacy of in-office bleaching after applying an experimental desensitizing gel composed of 10% calcium gluconate, 0.1% dexamethasone acetate, 10% potassium nitrate, and 5% glutaraldehyde. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In a split-mouth, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, 50 participants had their upper hemiarches randomized into experimental and placebo groups. Desensitizing and placebo gels were applied for 10 min before in-office bleaching (35% hydrogen peroxide, 1 × 50 min; two bleaching sessions; 1-week interval). TS was recorded immediately after bleaching, 1, 24, and 48 h after each session, with a 0-10 visual analogue scale (VAS) and a five-point numerical rating scale (NRS). The color was recorded in all groups at baseline, 1 week after each session, and 1 month after the end of bleaching using shade guide units (ΔSGUs) and a spectrophotometer (ΔEab, ΔE00, and ΔWID). RESULTS: Most participants (96%) felt some discomfort during treatment regardless of the study group. The odds ratio for pain was 0.65 (95% CI 0.1 to 4.1; p = 1.0). The intensity of TS did not differ between groups (p > 0.31), and it was only 0.34 VAS units lower in the experimental group. A significant color change occurred in both groups regardless of the group. CONCLUSIONS: The desensitizing experimental gel applied before in-office bleaching did not reduce the risk and the intensity of TS and did not affect color change. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Although the experimental desensitizing agent with varying mechanisms of action did not jeopardize the color change, it did not reduce the risk or intensity of in-office bleaching. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: RBR-7T7D4D.

Use of infrared photobiomodulation with low-level laser therapy for reduction of bleaching-induced tooth sensitivity after in-office bleaching: a double-blind, randomized controlled trial.

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the use of infrared photobiomodulation with low-level laser therapy (PBM) to reduce bleaching-induced tooth sensitivity (TS) after in-office bleaching. Eighty-three participants were randomized in blocks into two groups. In the experimental group, the patients received an application after each session of in-office bleaching (35% hydrogen peroxide, 1 × 50 min; 2 sessions with 1-week interval), while the laser application was simulated in the control group. The PBM system was operated in continuous mode, using 3 J of energy. A dose of 100 J/cm2 was applied for 30 s with 808 nm (100 mW of power) in the middle third of the crown. The risk and intensity of TS were recorded immediately after bleaching, 1 h, 24 h, and 48 h after each bleaching session, with a visual scale analog (0-10) and a five-point numerical scale (0-4). The color was recorded at the beginning, weekly, and 1 month after the end of the bleaching (VITA Classical, VITA Bleachedguide, and digital spectrophotometer). The risk of TS was 98% (95% CI 88 to 99%) for the laser group and 95% (95% CI 83 to 99%) for the control (RR = 1.03; 95% CI 0.94 to 1.12; p = 1.0). Similarly, no difference in the intensity of TS was detected for both pain scales (p > 0.65). Improvement in color change, regardless of the group, was observed (p > 0.15). The application of an PBM did not reduce the risk and intensity of TS when applied after the procedure using the parameters recommended by the manufacturer.Trial registration number and date of registration: RBR-4HCVSG-04/06/2019.

LED photobiomodulation effect on the bleaching-induced sensitivity with hydrogen peroxide 35%-a controlled randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of a protocol of photobiomodulation (PBM) with light-emitting diodes (LED) on the clinical risk of bleaching-induced sensitivity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-four volunteers were selected and randomly divided in two groups, placebo (PG) and LED (LG). The LG received PBM irradiation and tooth bleaching, while the PG received tooth bleaching and simulation of the irradiation. The occurrence of painful sensitivity was recorded during the dental bleaching; immediately after bleaching; and 24, 48, and 72 h after tooth bleaching. At the same measurement times, data were collected on the intensity of sensitivity (VAS and NRS scale) and teeth affected by bleaching-induced sensitivity. A questionnaire sought to measure how the painful sensitivity influenced basic daily activities. Tooth color measures were performed using subjective and objective methods. RESULTS: LED irradiation decreased the occurrence of sensitivity at all studied evaluation times as well as its intensity, with the exception of the 72-h data when both groups presented no difference. Teeth affected by bleaching-induced sensitivity were significantly greater in the PG. Color measurements presented no differences between the groups in the recently after and later measures. CONCLUSIONS: PBM with LED decreases sensitivity risk and sensibility intensity during and after office bleaching and causes no influence on the shade degree of whitening achieved. The decrease in tooth sensitivity provided more comfort and less suffering while drinking. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: LED irradiation is a promising intervention in the control of bleaching-induced sensitivity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: RBR-7hpfwj. Sensitivity intensity measured by the VAS scale (0-10) in the first whitening session (Graphic A) and second whitening session (Graphic B). Significance level set at ≤ 5%. *Mann-Whiteney U test. Columns followed by the same letter are significant different (ap < 0.001; bp < 0.001; cp < 0.001; dp =0.013; ep < 0.001; fp < 0.001; gp < 0.001; hp = 0.002).

Efficacy and tooth sensitivity of at-home bleaching in patients with esthetic restorations: a randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to evaluate the color change and tooth sensitivity (TS) caused by at-home bleaching in patients with sound and with restored teeth. METHODS: Forty patients were selected according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria and divided into two groups: So (patients with six caries-free maxillary anterior teeth) and Re (patients with at least one restoration in the six maxillary anterior teeth). Both groups were bleached with 10% carbamide peroxide (CP) at-home bleaching. The color change (CIELab [ΔE*ab], CIEDE00 [ΔE00], and whiteness index [∆WID]) were assessed using a spectrophotometer at baseline, 2 weeks, and 1 and 3 months after bleaching. Patients recorded their TS using a numeric rating scale (0-4). Data of color change were submitted to Student's T-test. The absolute risk and intensity of TS were compared using Fisher's and the Mann-Whitney tests, respectively (α = 0.05). RESULTS: Higher ΔE*ab, ΔE00, and ∆WID values were observed for So in relation to Re after all recall rate (p < 0.0001). No significant differences were observed regarding of bleaching-induced TS (p > 0.9). CONCLUSIONS: At-home dental bleaching with 10% CP generated the same pattern of TS in patients with or without restorations. However, in patients with restored teeth, it produced a lower color change after 2 weeks of bleaching. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: After 2 weeks of at-home bleaching, a lower whitening effect was observed in patients with anterior restorations when compared with patients with sound teeth. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier RBR-52j6gmg.

Gingival irritation in patients submitted to at-home bleaching with different cutouts of the bleaching tray: a randomized, single-blind clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: This split-mouth randomized, single-blind clinical trial evaluated the gingival irritation (GI) of at-home bleaching with individual trays of different cutouts, as well as the tooth sensitivity (TS) and color change. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred and twenty patients were randomized as to which side would receive the type of bleaching tray cutout: scalloped (in the gingival margin) and nonscalloped (extended from the gingival margin). The at-home bleaching was performed for 30 min with 10% hydrogen peroxide (HP) for 2 weeks. The absolute risk and intensity of GI and TS were assessed with a visual analog scale. Color change was assessed using a digital spectrophotometer and a color guide (α = 0.05). RESULTS: The proportion of patients who experienced GI was 57.5% (odds ratio 95% CI = 1.1 [0.7 to 1.8]), with no significant difference between groups (p = 0.66). The proportion of patients who experienced TS was 64.1% (odds ratio 95% CI = 1.0 [0.6 to 1.6]), with no significant difference between groups (p = 1.0). There is equivalence of scalloped and noscalloped groups for GI intensity (p < 0.01). Significant whitening was detected for both groups. Although some differences were observed between groups (CIELab and CIEDE00; p < 0.02), these were below of the considered clinically noticeable. CONCLUSIONS: The different cutouts of trays proved to be equivalent when regarding gengival irritation and tooth sensitivity when 10% HP for at-home bleaching was used. Significant color change was observed in both groups. However, significant differences detected between groups are not considered clinically noticeable. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Brazilian Clinical Trials Registry (RBR-2s34685). CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Scalloped or not, the individual trays for at-home bleaching could be considered a clinician's decision.

Does simultaneous versus individual-arch at-home dental bleaching regimen influence patient satisfaction? A randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: Our randomized, parallel and single-blinded clinical trial evaluated patient level of discomfort during at-home bleaching testing the equivalence between two different protocols for the use of bleaching trays (simultaneous vs. single arch), as well as tooth sensitivity (TS), gingival irritation, (GI) and bleaching efficacy (BE). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We randomized 100 patients into: simultaneous (n = 50) and single arch (n = 50). At-home bleaching was performed with 10% hydrogen peroxide (HP) for 2 weeks for simultaneous group and 4 weeks for single arch group. We assessed patient level of discomfort using 9-item questionnaire. The TS and GI, as well as BE using spectrophotometer and color guide were assessed using the visual analog scale (0-10). Data from level of discomfort and BE were evaluated by Student's t test. The TS and GI were compared using the relative risk and confidence interval (α = 0.05). RESULTS: Only tray adaptation showed a significant effect after the second week (p < 0.002). There was equivalence between groups for level of discomfort (p < 0.01). We found no significant intergroup differences for the risk of TS or GI, nor for intensity. We observed no significant differences between them regarding bleaching efficacy (p > 0.21). CONCLUSIONS: A simultaneous-use protocol for customized at-home dental bleaching trays proved to be equivalent to using single arch for patient level of discomfort and bleaching efficacy, with no significant increase in adverse effects. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Clinicians may decide whether to use a simultaneous or single arch protocol for tray usage; however, bleaching was achieved more quickly when the trays were worn simultaneously.

Effectiveness and adverse effects of at-home dental bleaching with 37% versus 10% carbamide peroxide: A randomized, blind clinical trial.

PURPOSE: The aim of this trial was to evaluate bleaching effectiveness, tooth sensitivity and gingival irritation of whitening patients with 10% versus 37% carbamide peroxide (CP). METHODS: Eighty patients were selected by inclusion and exclusion criteria and randomly allocated into two groups (n = 40): 37% CP and 10% CP. In both groups, patients performed whitening for 3 weeks, 4 h/day for 10% group and 30 min/day for 37% group. Color was evaluated with Vita Classical, Vita Bleachedguide 3D Master and Spectrophotometer Easyshade, at baseline, weekly and 30 days after treatment. Absolute risk and intensity of tooth sensitivity (TS) and gingival irritation (GI) were assessed with numeric rating scale (NRS) and a visual analog scale (VAS). Color changes were compared with t-test for independent samples. TS and GI were evaluated with Fisher's exact tests. Mann-Whitney test was used for NRS, and t-tests for VAS (α = 0.05). RESULTS: The 37% CP group showed faster whitening than 10% group at 1-3 weeks. However, 1 month after conclusion, both groups showed equivalent bleaching (p = 0.06). Regarding sensitivity and gingival irritation, 10% and 37% groups met no significant differences (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: The use of 37% CP 30 min/day showed equivalent results to 10% 4 h/day. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The use of 37% carbamide peroxide 30 min/day may decrease the time of tray use in at-home protocol for whitening because it presents equivalent results to 10% carbamide peroxide 4 h/day.

Effectiveness of remineralization agents on the prevention of dental bleaching induced sensitivity: A randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to compare the use of different remineralization agents before in-office bleaching for decreasing bleaching induced sensitivity. METHODS: A total of 64 volunteers were randomly divided into four groups. Before undergoing in-office bleaching with 38% hydrogen peroxide gel (three applications of 15 min each, one session), clinicians applied a placebo gel (control group), casein phosphopeptide-amorphous calcium phosphate (CPP-ACP), neutral sodium fluoride gel (NSF) or nano-hydroxyapatite solution (n-HAP) on all buccal surfaces of teeth. The gel was left undisturbed for 4 min. The efficacy of tooth whitening was assessed by determining the colour change using SGU. Patients recorded their tooth sensitivities on the VAS scale. Kruskal-Wallis test followed by Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare changes in tooth colour and intensity of tooth sensitivity between groups. RESULTS: Overall, there was no significant difference in shade change between the groups. Control and CPP-ACP groups showed significantly higher rates of hypersensitivity than NSF and the n-HAP group (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The use of a remineralization agent (n-HAP/NSF) before in-office bleaching did not affect the bleaching efficacy but did reduce tooth sensitivity. The before bleaching treatment use of an n-HAP solution can be suitable for reducing bleaching born sensitivity as well as commonly used NSF remineralizing gel before in-office tooth bleaching can reduce tooth sensitivity, the most common side effect associated with this procedure.

Influence of calcium lactate and fluoride solution mouthrinses on tooth sensitivity and effectiveness of color change during in-office bleaching: A randomized clinical trial.

PURPOSE: To conduct a clinical evaluation of calcium lactate and sodium fluoride mouthrinses in reducing sensitivity and efficacy of color change during in-office bleaching. METHODS: 75 participants were selected and divided into three groups (n= 25), according to the type of desensitizing treatment tested: calcium lactate mouthrinse prior to sodium fluoride mouthrinse before each bleaching session; daily mouthrinse with sodium fluoride; control (absence of mouthrinse). Each mouthrinse was used for 1 minute. Bleaching was performed following the same protocol in all groups, with 40% hydrogen peroxide (Opalescence Boost), in three 40-minute sessions, with a 48-hour interval between sessions. Clinical parameters such as sensitivity, gingival irritation and mouthrinse acceptability were assessed using Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and clinical examination at two timepoints: baseline (before any treatment) and 48 hours after the end of treatment. The color was evaluated with a spectrophotometer (VITA Classical scale guide, 3D Master guide and CIEL*a*b*). The data were analyzed by generalized linear models and by one-way ANOVA. RESULTS: There was significant color change in all groups according to the VITA Classical scale guide (P< 0.001). There was no significant difference among the groups for ΔL*, Δa*, Δb* and ΔE over time (P> 0.05). The control group presented a significant increase in sensitivity (P= 0.008). The other groups showed no significant difference between initial and final timepoints (P> 0.05). No symptoms of gingival irritation were observed in any of the groups evaluated. All desensitizing treatments presented high acceptability. Bleaching treatment was effective, regardless of association with desensitizing treatments. No treatment prevented bleaching sensitivity, but the absence of a combined desensitizing treatment led to increased sensitivity. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Although bleaching sensitivity during in-office bleaching treatment cannot be avoided, daily fluoridated mouthrinse or calcium lactate used prior to fluoridated mouthrinse prevented its increase.

Assessment of the effect of experimental bleaching agent with nano-bioactive material on postoperative sensitivity: A randomized, triple blind clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: This clinical study aimed to evaluate the effect of incorporating bioactive nanoparticles (n-Bm) inside an in-office bleaching gel on the risk and intensity of tooth sensitivity (TS) and on bleaching effectiveness. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-six participants were selected and randomly assigned into two groups: control-only in-office gel and experimental-in-office gel with n-Bm. Teeth were bleached in two sessions (3 × 15-min). TS was recorded using a VAS and NRS. The color change was evaluated by subjective (VITA Classical and VITA Bleachedguide) and objective (Easyshade spectrophotometer) methods at baseline and 30 days after the end of treatment. The TS was evaluated by McNemar, Wilcoxon Signed Rank, and paired t test. The color changes between groups were compared using paired t test (α = 0.05). RESULTS: No significant differences between the groups were observed in the risk (control = 27% [95%IC 18-39]; experimental = 21% [95%IC 13-32]) and intensity of TS, as well as in the color change (p >0.05) for any color measurement. CONCLUSION: The inclusion of n-Bm into the bleaching agents did not affect the whitening effectiveness, as well as the risk and intensity of TS between groups. However, the results of the absolute risk of TS were low for both in-office gels used. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Despite no significant differences between groups, both experimental bleaching agents present suitable results with low values for TS.

The use of anti-inflammatory drugs to prevent bleaching-induced tooth sensitivity is ineffective and unnecessary.

Data sources The authors searched Medline via PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov for published and unpublished clinical trials. Only randomised clinical trials, with either a parallel or crossover design, reporting the tooth sensitivity of participants undergoing in-office dental bleaching and comparing pain frequency and severity with oral premedication of a non-steroidal or other anti-inflammatory drug compared with a placebo were used in the review. Studies that evaluated the topical administration of drugs or desensitising agents were not reviewed.Study selection In total,5,050 randomised clinical studies were screened and 11 studies were included in the various meta-analyses. Nine studies examined the effect of pre-emptive analgesics on the risk of sensitivity and ten studies evaluated the effect of drugs on the severity of sensitivity; seven of these studies were assessed as having a low risk of bias.Data extraction and synthesis This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted a priori and registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews. There were two reviewers who extracted data from the study tables and independently performed quality assessments of the selected trials using the Office of Health Assessment and Translation risk of bias rating tool for human and animal studies. Risk ratios were calculated for the dichotomous sensitivity risk data and mean difference for measures of sensitivity intensity.Results The authors found no effect of the drugs on the risk of sensitivity. Using a visual analogue scale, the authors identified a small but clinically insignificant reduction in the level of sensitivity in the drug-treated group evaluated up to one hour after bleaching. This was not observed when a numerical rating scale was used to measure pain intensity. For the 24-hour pain data, the authors did not find any significant intensity difference between groups. Mean pain intensity scores were generally low in both experimental groups in all randomised controlled trials reviewed. Based on a visual inspection of the funnel plots of all outcomes, the authors concluded that there was no publication bias.Conclusions The data did not support the pre-emptive use of anti-inflammatory drugs in preventing or reducing the intensity of pain caused by in-office tooth bleaching.

Pre-operative use of dexamethasone does not reduce incidence or intensity of bleaching-induced tooth sensitivity. A triple-blind, parallel-design, randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the effect of the administration of pre-operative dexamethasone on tooth sensitivity stemming from in-office bleaching. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A triple-blind, parallel-design, randomized clinical trial was conducted on 70 volunteers who received dexamethasone or placebo capsules. The drugs were administered in a protocol of three daily 8-mg doses of the drug, starting 48 h before the in-office bleaching treatment. Two bleaching sessions with 37.5% hydrogen peroxide gel were performed with a 1-week interval. Tooth sensitivity (TS) was recorded on visual analog scales (VAS) and numeric rating scales (NRS) in different periods up to 48 h after bleaching. The color evaluations were also performed. The absolute risk of TS and its intensity were evaluated by using Fisher's exact test. Comparisons of the TS intensity (NRS and VAS data) were performed by using the Mann-Whitney U test and a two-way repeated measures ANOVA and Tukey's test, respectively. RESULTS: In both groups, a high risk of TS (Dexa 80% x Placebo 94%) was detected. No significant difference was observed in terms of TS intensity. A whitening of approximately 3 shade guide units of the VITA Classical was detected in both groups, which were statistically similar. CONCLUSIONS: It was concluded that the administration pre-operatively of dexamethasone, in the proposed protocol, does not reduce the incidence or intensity of bleaching-induced tooth sensitivity. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The use of dexamethasone drug before in-office bleaching treatment does not reduce incidence or intensity of tooth sensitivity. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02956070.

Effect of acidity of in-office bleaching gels on tooth sensitivity and whitening: a two-center double-blind randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: The study aimed to compare the tooth sensitivity (TS) and bleaching efficacy of two hydrogen peroxide gels with different pHs (acid pH [Pola Office, SDI] and the neutral pH [Pola Office+, SDI]) used for in-office bleaching. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-four patients from Brazil and Chile, with right superior incisor darker than A2, were selected for this double-blind, split-mouth randomized trial. Teeth were bleached in two sessions, with 1-week interval. Each session had three applications of 8 min each, according to the manufacturer's instructions. The color changes were evaluated by subjective (Vita Classical and Vita Bleachedguide) and objective (Easy shade spectrophotometer) methods. Participants recorded TS with 0-10 visual analog scale. Color change in shade guide units (SGU) and ΔE was analyzed by Student's t test (α = 0.05). The absolute risk and intensity of TS were evaluated by McNemar's test and Wilcoxon-paired test, respectively (α = 0.05). RESULTS: All groups achieved the same level of whitening after 30 days of clinical evaluation. The use of a neutral in-office bleaching gel significantly decreases the absolute risk of TS (28%, 95% CI 18-41) and intensity of TS when compared to the acid bleaching gel (absolute risk of 50%, 95% CI 37-63). CONCLUSION: The use of a neutral in-office bleaching agent gel produced the same whitening degree than an acid bleaching gel but with reduced risk and intensity of tooth sensitivity. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Clinicians should opt to use in-office bleaching with a neutral gel than an acid product because the former causes a significant lower risk and intensity of tooth sensitivity.

Dentin hypersensitivity-like tooth pain seen in patients receiving steroid therapy: An exploratory study.

To ascertain whether steroid therapy evokes dentin hypersensitivity (DH)-like tooth pain, we performed a study based on compelling evidence from patients receiving steroid therapy. An exploratory study was conducted using a questionnaire for 220 patients prescribed steroids who attended the Department of Hematology and Rheumatology of Tohoku University Hospital. Group comparisons between patients with and without steroid pulse therapy were analysed by statistical means. In this study, any DH-like tooth pain that commenced subsequent to steroid treatment was defined as steroid-derived (SD) tooth pain. The prevalence of SD tooth pain was 17.7% (39/220 patients). SD tooth pain was triggered in many vital teeth by cold and/or hot water (84.2% and 23.7%, respectively) with the pain characterised as continuous, in contrast to typical DH tooth pain. SD tooth pain was significantly more frequent in pulse therapy patients than in non-pulse therapy patients (p < 0.05). Logistic regression analysis adjusted for age and sex showed similar results (odds ratio = 3.74, p = 0.013). Moreover, a positive correlation was observed between the steroid dose and pain score (ρ = 0.642). Dose reduction or discontinuation of steroid therapy relieved SD tooth pain in all cases. Thus, steroid therapy can evoke DH-like tooth pain during treatment.

An overview on the Effects of 10% and 15% Carbamide Peroxide and its Relationship to Dentine Sensitivity.

The purpose of this overview was to review the available literature to determine if there was any evidence that the application of 10% and 15% carbamide peroxide in tooth whitening procedures resulted in tooth (dentine) sensitivity. The conclusions from the review would indicate that tooth whitening with either 10% or 15% carbamide peroxide is an effective and safe treatment when under a dental professionals' supervision. Reported side-effects were considered mild to moderate in nature and were transient in duration. Reported incidences of dentine sensitivity range from 15-65% of patients using 10% carbamide peroxide.

Placebo-controlled clinical trial evaluating 9.5% hydrogen peroxide high-adhesion whitening strips.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness and tolerability of an experimental 9.5% hydrogen peroxide whitening strip relative to a placebo control over a three-week period. METHODS: In this parallel-design, double-blind clinical trial, 54 adult volunteers were randomized to an experimental 9.5% hydrogen peroxide whitening strip or placebo strip balancing for age and baseline tooth color, and received treatment. Strips were worn on the maxillary arch 30 minutes daily for 20 days. Efficacy was measured objectively as L*a*b* color change from digital images at Days 4, 7, 15, and 21. RESULTS: As early as Day 4 and at all subsequent visits, the 9.5% strip group experienced significant (p < 0.004) color improvement relative to placebo for b* and L* color parameters. The amount of color improvement increased with continuing peroxide strip use. Mean ± SE between-group differences in Ab* were -0.6 ± 0.16, -0.8 ± 0.15, -1.6 ± 0.19, and -1.9 ± 0.20 at Days 4, 7, 15, and 21, respectively. Similar results were noted for AL*. Minor tooth sensitivity was the most common adverse event, as reported by 12% of subjects in the 9.5% strip group and 11% of subjects in the placebo group. No subjects discontinued treatment due to an adverse event. CONCLUSION: This placebo-controlled clinical trial demonstrated that an experimental 9.5% hydrogen peroxide strip yielded significant tooth whitening relative to a placebo strip as early as after three days of product use.

In-office dental bleaching in adolescents using 6% hydrogen peroxide with and without gingival barrier: a randomized double-blind clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: At low concentrations used for in-office bleaching gels, such as 6% HP, gingival barrier continues to be performed. If we take into account that, in the at-home bleaching technique, no barrier is indicated, it seems that the use of a gingival barrier fails to make much sense when bleaching gel in low concentration is used for in-office bleaching. OBJECTIVE: This double-blind, split-mouth, randomized clinical trial evaluated the gingival irritation (GI) of in-office bleaching using 6% hydrogen peroxide (HP) with and without a gingival barrier in adolescents, as well as color change and the impact of oral condition on quality of life. METHODOLOGY: Overall, 60 participants were randomized into which side would or would not receive the gingival barrier. In-office bleaching was performed for 50 minutes with 6% HP in three sessions. The absolute risk and intensity of GI were assessed with a visual analogue scale. Color change was assessed using a digital spectrophotometer and color guides. The impact of oral condition on quality of life was assessed using the Brazilian version of the Oral Health Impact Profile (α=0.05). RESULTS: The proportion of patients who presented GI for the "with barrier" group was 31.6% and for the "without barrier" group, 30% (p=1.0). There is an equivalence for the evaluated groups regarding GI intensity (p<0.01). Color change was detected with no statistical differences (p>0.29). There was a significant impact of oral condition on quality of life after bleaching (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The use or not of the gingival barrier for in-office bleaching with 6% HP was equivalent for GI, as well as for bleaching efficacy, with improvement in the impact of oral condition on quality of life.

Effect of topical application of ibuprofen/arginine on the in-office bleaching-induced tooth sensitivity: A randomized, triple-blind controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: The application of anti-inflammatories as topical desensitizers before dental bleaching is an approach to reduce bleaching-induced tooth sensitivity (TS). This randomized controlled trial compared the risk and intensity of TS and the color change resulting from in-office dental bleaching after using an experimental desensitizing gel containing ibuprofen and arginine. METHODS: Sixty-two participants with upper canine shades A2 or darker were randomly assigned to either the ibuprofen-arginine desensitizing group or the placebo group. The desensitizing gel was applied for 15 min before in-office bleaching with 35 % hydrogen peroxide gel for 50 min (2 sessions). To assess the absolute risk and intensity of TS, visual (0-10) and numeric rating (0-5) scales were used, and group comparisons were made using the McNemar test, Wilcoxon test, and paired Student t-test (α = 0.05). Color change was evaluated using Vita Classical, Vita Bleachedguide (ΔSGU), and Vita EasyShade (ΔEab, ΔE00, and ΔWID) before and one month after the bleaching procedure. Group comparisons for color change were done using a paired t-test (α = 0.05). RESULTS: The odds ratio for TS was 0.14 [95 % CI 0.02 to 0.6], meaning lower odds of TS for the desensitizing gel. A lower intensity of TS was also observed for the experimental group (p < 0.005) up to 48 h after bleaching. All color evaluation tools demonstrated effective and similar whitening for both groups (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Using the experimental desensitizing gel containing ibuprofen and arginine effectively reduced the risk and intensity of TS without compromising the bleaching efficacy. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The topical application of ibuprofen/arginine on the in-office bleaching reduced risk and intensity of bleaching-induced tooth sensitivity.