The influence of smoking on the effectiveness of at-home bleaching: A prospective clinical study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of smoking on tooth whitening and color change after at-home bleaching. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective clinical study evaluated two groups of participants: NS-non-smokers (n = 24) and S-smokers (n = 16). All subjects were treated with at-home bleaching using 22% carbamide peroxide (CP) for 1 h/day for 14 days. Color coordinates (L*-luminosity, a*-red-green axis and b*-yellow-blue axis) were obtained before bleaching (D0-baseline), 1 day (D1), 15 days (D15), and 1 month (D30) after bleaching. The whiteness index (WID ) and CIEDE2000 color differences (ΔE00 ) were calculated for S and NS. Color changes between S and NS subjects for specific teeth (CI-Central Incisors, LI-Lateral Incisors, and C-Canines) were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney test (α = 0.05). RESULTS: There was no significant difference in WID between S and NS subjects at baseline. NS participants showed higher WID than S at D1, D15, and D30 (p < 0.05). NS showed higher ΔWID for CI and C between D0 and the other evaluation times (D1, D15, and D30) compared to S. Smokers showed higher darkening of CI than NS in ΔWID D30-D1 (p < 0.05). Color changes showed similar overall behavior for ΔWID . For all evaluation times, ΔWID and ΔE00 values were below the corresponding acceptability thresholds. CONCLUSION: At-home bleaching was effective on smokers and nonsmokers. Smoking negatively affected color stability after bleaching. ΔE00 and ΔWID were acceptable for both groups. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Although smoking negatively affected color stability after bleaching, the observed changes were clinically acceptable.

Predictors of orthodontic treatment conclusion: A historical cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: The study investigated which patient and orthodontic treatment factors act as predictors for the conclusion of the ongoing treatment in a dental clinic of a specialization program in Orthodontics. METHODS: Data were collected from the records of patients treated from 1997 to 2015. Potential predictors for treatment conclusion were investigated: patient-related factors (PRFs) and treatment-related factors (TRFs). PRFs were sex, age, face balance, Angle malocclusion classification, open bite, denture, facial pattern, facial profile, buccal corridor, crossbite, maxillary deficiency, and sagittal mandibular behavior; and TRFs were therapeutic approaches, treatment modality, extractions, and Bolton discrepancy. The initial and final treatment dates were collected. Descriptive data analysis, univariate, and multivariate logistic regression were performed (5% significance). RESULTS: Of the 903 records, 561 patients were included in the study. It was demonstrated that starting the treatment at a young age (PRF) and the presence of crossbite (TRF) are predictive factors for the treatment conclusion. A vertical facial pattern (dolichofacial or brachyfacial) and a greater number of extractions for orthodontic reasons may contribute positively to the conclusion of the treatment. The frequency of treatment inconclusion was higher during the first 2 years of treatment (more than 50% of the patients that initiated the treatment). CONCLUSIONS: Young age at the beginning of treatment and the presence of crossbite malocclusion can increase the chance of treatment conclusion.