Over-the-counter products in tooth bleaching: A scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: To map and summarize the current scientific evidence concerning the active ingredients, effectiveness, and adverse effects of over-the-counter (OTC) bleaching products. DATA AND SOURCE: This study was conducted according to the PRISMA-ScR guidelines for scoping reviews and registered on the Open Science Framework platform. STUDY SELECTION: Database searches were conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus up to January 2024. All in vitro, in situ, and clinical studies evaluating the effectiveness and adverse effects of OTC bleaching products were included. A descriptive analysis of the included studies was performed. RESULTS: A total of 88 studies were included. Most of them were in vitro studies (n = 49), followed by randomized clinical trials (n = 28). The main OTC bleaching products identified were whitening or stain-removing toothpastes (n = 42), followed by whitening strips (n = 39). Most clinical studies indicate that whitening strips are effective in improving tooth color and providing whitening benefits. In contrast, the bleaching effectiveness of toothpastes, mouth rinses and whitening trays was mainly supported by in vitro studies. The main adverse effects associated with OTC bleaching agents were tooth sensitivity and gingival irritation. CONCLUSION: A wide variety of OTC bleaching products is available for consumer self-administered use. Clinical studies have mainly confirmed the bleaching effectiveness of whitening strips, while the validation for toothpastes, mouth rinses and whitening trays has mainly relied on in vitro studies. Nevertheless, the use of OTC bleaching products may result in adverse effects, including tooth sensitivity, gingival irritation, and enamel surface changes. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Some over-the-counter bleaching products may have whitening properties supported by clinical studies, particularly those containing hydrogen or carbamide peroxide. Nonetheless, clinicians must be aware of the potential risks associated with excessive self-administration of these products, which may result in adverse effects.

Accuracy, adaptation and margin quality of monolithic zirconia crowns fabricated by 3D printing versus subtractive manufacturing technique: A systematic review and meta-analysis of in vitro studies.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the accuracy (trueness and precision), marginal and internal adaptation, and margin quality of zirconia crowns made by additive manufacturing compared to subtractive manufacturing technology. METHODS: The investigation adhered to the PRISMA-ScR guidelines for systematic reviews and was registered at the Prospero database (n°CRD42023452927). Four electronic databases, including PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science and manual search was conducted to find relevant studies published until September 2023. In vitro studies that assessed the trueness and precision, marginal and internal adaptation, and margin quality of printed crowns compared to milled ones were included. Studies on crowns over implants, pontics, temporary restorations, laminates, or exclusively experimental materials were excluded. RESULTS: A total of 9 studies were included in the descriptive reporting and 7 for meta-analysis. The global meta-analysis of the trueness (P<0.74,I2=90 %) and the margin quality (P<0.61,I2=0 %) indicated no significant difference between the root mean square of printed and milled zirconia crowns. The subgroup analysis for the printing system showed a significant effect (P<0.01). The meta-analysis of the crown areas indicated no significant difference in most of the areas, except for the marginal (favoring milled crowns) and axial (favoring printed crowns) areas. For precision and adaptation, both methods showed a clinically acceptable level. CONCLUSIONS: Additive manufacturing technology produces crowns with trueness and margin quality comparable to subtractive manufacturing. Both techniques have demonstrated the ability to produce crowns with precision levels, internal discrepancy, and marginal fit within clinically acceptable limits. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: 3D printing emerges as a promising and potentially applicable alternative method for manufacturing zirconia crowns, as it shows trueness and margin quality comparable to restorations produced by the subtractive method.

Are polywave light-emitting diodes more effective than monowave ones in the photoactivation of resin-based materials containing alternative photoinitiators? A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aimed to analyze if using polywave light-emitting diodes (LED) to photoactivate resin-based materials (resin composites, adhesive systems, and resin cements) containing alternative photoinitiators provide better physicochemical properties than monowave ones. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Inclusion criteria were in vitro studies that evaluated the degree of conversion, microhardness and flexural strength in resin-based materials containing alternative photoinitiators and light-activated with mono and polywave LEDs. Exclusion criteria were studies that evaluated the physicochemical properties of composites through any material interposed between the LED and the resin composite and studies that exclusively compared different modes and/or light activation times. Selection of studies, data extraction, and risk-of-bias analysis was performed. Data from selected studies were qualitatively analyzed. A systematic search was performed in June 2021 using PubMed/Medline, Embase, Scopus, and ISI Web of Science databases and grey literature without language restriction. RESULTS: A total of 18 studies were included in the qualitative analysis. Nine studies used diphenyl (2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyl) phosphine oxide (TPO) as an alternative photoinitiator for resin composite. Polywave LED improved the degree of conversion of resin composite compared to monowave in 9 of the included studies. Polywave LED improved the microhardness of resin composite compared to monowave in 7 of the included studies. Polywave LED improved the degree of conversion for 11 studies and microhardness of resin composite compared to monowave for 7 included studies. No differences in the flexural strength medium between poly and monowave LEDs were observed. The evidence was graded as low quality due to the high risk of bias for 11 studies. CONCLUSION: The existing studies, with their limitations, revealed that the polywave light-emitting diode maximizes activation, resulting in a higher degree of double-bond conversion and microhardness of resin composites containing alternative photoinitiators. However, the flexural strength of these materials is not influenced by the type of light activation device.