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.

Tooth sensitivity in different arches post in-office dental bleaching: A multicenter randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the risk and intensity of tooth sensitivity (TS) and gingival irritation (GI), as well as bleaching efficacy (BE) in the maxillary and mandibular arches after in-office dental bleaching. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 90 participants were randomly into two groups according to the arch (maxillary or mandibular) in which the patient will first receive a 35 % hydrogen peroxide gel (2 sessions; 1 × 30 min; 1 week apart). TS and GI were recorded immediately after, up to 1 h, 24 h and 48 h after bleaching, using the 0-10 Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). BE was assessed before bleaching and 30 days after the end of the treatment (shade guide units [ΔSGU], CIELab [ΔEab], CIEDE2000 [ΔE00], and Whiteness Index for Dentistry [WID]). TS and GI were compared using McNemar's and paired t-test. BE were compared with Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test (ΔSGU) and paired t-test (ΔEab, ΔE00, and WID) (α = 0.05). RESULTS: The risk and the intensity of TS was statistically higher for the mandibular arch (p < 0.003). The risk and intensity of GI did not differ between arches (p > 0.38). Both arches demonstrated significant BE (ΔSGU, ΔEab, ΔE00 and WID), without differences between them (p > 0.08). CONCLUSIONS: In-office dental bleaching induces higher risk and the intensity of TS in the mandibular arch when compared to maxillary arch, without significant differences in gingival irritation, or bleaching efficacy. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Most patients experience tooth sensitivity regardless of the dental arch involved. However, when performing in-office dental bleaching, clinicians should consider that the mandibular arch is more likely to experience greater sensitivity compared to the maxillary arch.