Does the Use of a "Walking Bleaching" Technique Increase Bone Resorption Markers?

OBJECTIVE: This randomized clinical trial evaluated the effect of 35% hydrogen peroxide in comparison with 37% carbamide peroxide in a nonvital bleaching technique of "walking bleaching" (four sessions of treatment) on periodontal markers: nuclear factor kappa B-ligand (RANK-L-process of root resorption marker) and interleukin 1ß (IL-1ß-inflammatory response marker). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Fifty volunteers presenting with discoloration of nonvital teeth and endodontic treatment in good condition participated. Fifty teeth were randomly divided into two study groups according to bleaching gel: HP = 35% hydrogen peroxide (n=25) and 37% carbamide peroxide (n=25). Nonvital bleaching was performed with a walking bleaching technique consisting of four sessions of bleach application. Gingival crevicular fluid samples were taken in order to quantify the RANK-L and IL-1ß levels by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Samples were obtained from six periodontal sites for each bleached tooth: three vestibular and three palatine (mesial, middle, and distal) at seven time periods: baseline, after each of the four sessions of nonvital bleaching, at one week, and at one month after nonvital bleaching. Tooth color variations were analyzed in each session by VITA Bleachedguide 3D-MASTER (ΔSGU). RESULTS: Significant increments in the RANK-L and IL-1ß levels were detected in each evaluated time compared with baseline ( p<0.05); however, no differences were detected between hydrogen peroxide and carbamide peroxide on increments of the biomarkers studied. The change of color was effective for both nonvital bleaching therapies ( p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Nonvital bleaching induced a significant increment in the RANK-L and IL-1ß levels in periodontal tissues around bleached, nonvital teeth.

12 Years of Repair of Amalgam and Composite Resins: A Clinical Study.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to clinically evaluate repaired posterior amalgam and composite restorations over a 12 year period, investigate the influence of repair in the survival of restorations, and compare their behavior with respect to controls. METHODS: Thirty-four patients, 18 to 80 years of age with 167 restorations, 67 composite resin (RC), and 100 amalgam (AM) restorations, participated. Restorations with localized, marginal, anatomical deficiencies and/or secondary caries, and "clinically judged" suitable for repair or replacement according to US Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria, were randomly assigned to four groups: repair (n=35, 20 AM, 15 RC), replacement (n=43, 21 AM, 22 RC), positive control (n=71, 49 AM, 22 RC), or negative control (n=18, 10 AM, 8 RC). The quality of the restorations was blind scored according to the modified USPHS criteria. Two examiners scored them at initial status (κ=0.74) and after one to five, 10, and 12 years (κ=0.88). Wilcoxon and Mann-Whitney tests provided for comparisons within the same group and between years, respectively. RESULTS: After 12 years, all groups behaved similarly in marginal adaptation, marginal stain, teeth sensitivity, anatomic form, and luster ( p≥0.05). Better behavior in roughness was observed in replaced RC ( p=0.049). CONCLUSIONS: Given that most clinical parameters investigated were similar between all groups during the follow-up, the repair of RC and AM restorations is a good clinical option because it is minimally invasive and can consistently increase the longevity of restorations.

Effect of Refurbishing Amalgam and Resin Composite Restorations After 12 Years: Controlled Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to clinically evaluate posterior amalgam and resin composite restorations refurbished over a period of 12 years by investigating the influence of refurbishing on the survival of restorations and comparing their behaviors with respect to controls. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Thirty-four patients were enrolled, ages 18 to 80 years, with 174 restorations, 48 restorations of resin composite (RC), and 126 restorations of amalgam (AM). Restorations with localized defects in anatomy, roughness, luster, or marginal staining that were clinically judged as suitable for refurbishing according to US Public Health Service (USPHS) Ryge criteria were assigned to group A-refurbishing (n=85; 67 AM, 18 RC)-or group B-control (n=89; 59 AM, 30 RC); the quality of the restorations was evaluated blindly according to the modified USPHS criteria. Two observers conducted evaluations at the initial state (k=0.74) and after one to five, 10, and 12 years (k=0.88). Wilcoxon, Friedman, and Mantel-Cox tests were performed to compare the groups, respectively. RESULTS: After 12 years, both groups experienced a similar decline, except for an evidently better performance in marginal adaptation in RC control (p=0.043) and in anatomy in AM refurbished (p=0.032). CONCLUSIONS: After 12 years, no difference was found in the clinical condition and longevity of the refurbished restorations compared to the control group.

Comparison of Effectiveness and Sensitivity Using Two In-Office Bleaching Protocols for a 6% Hydrogen Peroxide Gel in a Randomized Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this blinded and randomized clinical trial was to compare two application protocols (one 36-minute application vs three 12-minute applications). We then assessed the effectiveness of the bleaching and any increase in sensitivity that was induced by bleaching via a split-mouth design. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Thirty patients were treated. One group had a half arch of teeth treated with a traditional application protocol (group A: 3 × 12 minutes for two sessions). The other received an abbreviated protocol (group B: 1 × 36 minutes over two sessions). Two sessions were appointed with a two-day interval between them. The tooth color was registered at each session, as well as one week and one month after completing the treatment via a spectrophotometer. This measured L*, a*, and b*. This was also evaluated subjectively using the VITA classical A1-D4 guide and VITA Bleachedguide 3D-MASTER. Tooth sensitivity was registered according to the visual analogue scale (VAS) scale. Tooth color variation and sensitivity were compared between groups. RESULTS: Both treatments changed tooth color vs baseline. The ΔE* = 5.71 ± 2.62 in group A, and ΔE* = 4.93 ± 2.09 in group B one month after completing the bleaching (p=0.20). No statistical differences were seen via subjective evaluations. There were no differences in tooth sensitivity between the groups. The absolute risk of sensitivity reported for both groups was 6.25% (p=0.298). The intensity by VAS was mild (p=1.00). CONCLUSIONS: We used hydrogen peroxide (6%) that was light activated with a hybrid LED/laser and two different protocols (one 36-minute application vs three 12-minute applications each for two sessions). These approaches were equally effective. There were no differences in absolute risk of sensitivity; both groups reported mild sensitivity.

Longevity, Esthetic Perception, and Psychosocial Impact of Teeth Bleaching by Low (6%) Hydrogen Peroxide Concentration for In-office Treatment: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVE: The aim was to evaluate the color longevity after nine months of in-office bleaching with gel (6% hydrogen peroxide), to compare this to a control concentration of 35% in a split-mouth study model, and to assess the dental confidence and psychosocial impact on patients. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Twenty-seven patients were assessed at the nine-month recall. The bleaching procedure with 6% or 35% hydrogen peroxide gel was performed randomly in the upper hemi-arch of each patient. The color was measured at baseline and at one week, one month, and nine months after the procedure, using the Vita Easyshade spectrophotometer, the Vita classical shade guide organized by value, and Vita Bleach Guide 3DMaster. Moreover, two surveys, OHIP-Esthetics and PIDAQ, were used to assess the esthetic self-perception and psychosocial impact of the bleaching procedure. During the nine-month recall, the color was assessed before and after dental prophylaxis. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients participated in the nine-month recall. There was a significant difference in ΔE between the two groups at all times assessed (p<0.011). The ΔL, Δa, and Δb showed a difference between the two groups at all times assessed (p<0.038), except for ΔL from the baseline vs nine-month after prophylaxis value (p>0.20). There was no significant difference in ΔSGU at all times (p>0.05). There was a significant difference in OHIP-Esthetics and PIDAQ sums compared with baseline scores (p<0.03). CONCLUSION: The two compounds remained effective at nine months, with a slight rebound of color, and maintained their objective color difference but not the subjective color difference. Patients were satisfied with the bleaching procedure, and this had a positive impact on esthetic perception and a positive psychosocial impact at the nine-month recall.

Seal, replacement or monitoring amalgam restorations with occlusal marginal defects? Results of a 10-year clinical trial.

The aim of this prospective and blind clinical trial was to assess the effectiveness of sealing localized marginal defects of amalgam restoration that were initially scheduled to be replaced. A cohort of twenty six patients with 60 amalgam restorations (n=44Class I and n=16Class II), that presented marginal defects deviating from ideal (Bravo) according to USPHS criteria, were assigned to either sealing or replacement groups: A: sealing n=20, Replacement n=20, and no treatment (n=20). Two blind examiners evaluated the restorations at baseline (K=0.74) and after ten years (K=0.84) according with USPHS criteria, in four parameters: marginal adaptation (MA), secondary caries (SC), marginal staining (MS) and teeth sensitivity (TS). Multiple comparison of restorations degradation/upgrade was analyzed by Friedman test and the comparisons within groups were performed by Wilcoxon test. After 10 years, 44 restorations were assessed (73.3%), Group A: n=14 and Group B: n=16; and Group C: n=14 sealing and replacement amalgam restorations presented similar level of quality in MA (p=0.76), SC (p=0.25) and TS (p=0.52), while in MS (p=0.007) presented better performance in replacement group after 10-years. Most of the occlusal amalgam restorations with marginal gaps showed similar long term outcomes than the restorations were sealed, replaced, or not treated over a 10-year period. Most of the restorations of the three groups were clinically acceptable, under the studied parameters. All restorations had the tendency to present downgrade/deterioration over time.

Effectiveness of 6% hydrogen peroxide concentration for tooth bleaching­A double-blind, randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this clinical randomized double-blind split-mouth study was to assess the effectiveness of a 6% hydrogen peroxide with nitrogen-doped titanium dioxide light activated bleaching agent. METHOD: 31 patients were treated with: one upper hemiarcade with a 35% hydrogen peroxide bleaching agent and the other hemiarcade with a 6% hydrogen peroxide. Two applications were completed each treatment session and three sessions were appointed, with one week interval between them. Tooth colour was registered each session and 1 week and 1 months after completing the treatment by spectrophotometer, registering parameters L*, a* and b*, and subjectively using VITA Classic guide. Tooth sensitivity was registered by VAS and patient satisfaction and self-perception result was determined using OHIP-14. Tooth colour variation and sensitivity were compared between both bleaching agents. RESULTS: Both treatment showed a change between baseline colour and all check-points with a ΔE=5.57 for 6% and of ΔE=7.98 for the 35% one month after completing the (p<0.05). No statistical differences were seen when subjective evaluations were compared. Also, no differences were seen in tooth sensitivity between bleaching agents. OHIP-14 questionnaire demonstrated a significant change for all patients after bleaching. CONCLUSIONS: A 6% hydrogen peroxide with nitrogen-doped titanium dioxide light activated agent is effective for tooth bleaching, reaching a ΔE of 5.57 one month after completing the treatment, with no clinical differences to a 35% agent neither in colour change or in tooth sensitivity. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: A low concentration hydrogen peroxide bleaching agent may reach good clinical results with less adverse effects.

Longitudinal results of a 10-year clinical trial of repair of amalgam restorations.

The aim of this prospective, blind, and randomized clinical trial was to assess the effectiveness of repair of localized clinical defects in amalgam restorations that were initially scheduled for replacement. A cohort of 20 patients with 40 (Class I and Class II) amalgam restorations that presented one or more clinical features that deviated from the ideal (Bravo or Charlie) according to US Public Health Service criteria, were randomly assigned to either the repair or the replacement group-A: repair, n = 19; and B: replacement, n = 21. Two examiners who had calibration expertise evaluated the restorations at baseline and 10 years after according to seven parameters: marginal occlusal adaptation, anatomic form, surface roughness, marginal staining, contact, secondary caries, and luster. After 10 years, 30 restorations (75%) were evaluated (Group A: n = 17; Group B: n = 13). Repaired and replaced amalgam restorations showed similar survival outcomes regarding marginal defects and secondary caries in patients with low and medium caries risk, and most of the restorations were considered clinically acceptable after 10 years. Repair treatment increased the potential for tooth longevity, using a minimally interventional procedure. All restorations trend to downgrade over time.

Sealing composite with defective margins, good care or over treatment? Results of a 10-year clinical trial.

PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to clinically evaluate sealed composite restorations after 10 years and compare their behavior with respect to controls. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The cohort consisted of 20 patients aged 18 to 80 years with 80 composite restorations. All participants in the sealing and no-treatment groups presented with clinical features for the marginal adaptation that deviated from the ideal and were rated Bravo (United States Public Health Service criteria). Composites with Alfa values for the marginal adaptation were used as the positive control. RESULTS: The marginal adaptation behavior was similar between the sealing and control (+) groups, with a high frequency of Bravo values in the 10th year (80% and 51%, respectively). Most of the no-treatment (-) group maintained the Bravo values (91%) for 10 years, although some restorations (9%) progressed to Charlie values. The anatomy parameter differed significantly between the first and 10th years, with deterioration in all three groups (p<0.05). The secondary caries parameter had a similar behavior in the three groups (p>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Sealing the margins of the composite resin restorations had no significant effect compared with the control groups, under the conditions of this study. Sealing the restorations substantially improved the marginal staining and marginal adaptation parameters, although by the tenth year they were similar to the group without intervention.

Can repair increase the longevity of composite resins? Results of a 10-year clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this double-blind clinical trial was to assess the longevity of repairs to localized clinical defects in composite resin restorations that were initially planned to be treated with a restoration replacement. METHODS: Twenty-eight patients aged 18-80 years old with 50 composite resin restorations (CR) were recruited. The restorations with localized, marginal, anatomical deficiencies and/or secondary caries adjacent to CR that were "clinically judged" to be suitable for repair or replacement according to the USPHS criteria were randomly assigned to Repair (n=25) or Replacement (n=25) groups, and the quality of the restorations was scored according to the modified USPHS criteria. The restorations were blind and two examiners scored them at baseline (Cohen Kappa agreement score 0.74) and at ten years (Cohen Kappa agreement score 0.87) restorations. Wilcoxon tests were performed for comparisons within the same group (95% CI), and Friedman tests were utilized for multiple comparisons between the different years within each group. RESULTS: Over the decade, the two groups behaved similarly on the parameters of marginal adaptation (MA) (p>0.05), secondary caries (SC) (p>0.05), anatomy (A) (p<0.05), and colour (C) (p>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Given that the MA, SC, A and C parameters behaved similarly in both groups, the repair of composite resins should be elected when clinically indicated, because it is a minimally invasive treatment that can consistently increase the longevity of restorations. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The repair of defective composite resins as an alternative treatment to increase their longevity proved to be a safe and effective treatment in the long term.