At-home bleaching versus whitening toothpastes for treatment of tooth discoloration: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to analyze the cost-effectiveness of whitening toothpastes and at-home bleaching for the treatment of tooth discoloration. METHODOLOGY: A cost-effectiveness economic analysis was conducted, and eight randomized clinical trials were selected based on the whitening agent product used: blue covarine dentifrices (BCD), hydrogen peroxide dentifrices (HPD), dentifrices without bleaching agents (CD, negative control), and 10% carbamide peroxide (CP10, positive control) for at-home bleaching. The consumer/patient perspective was adopted, macro-costing techniques were used and a decision tree model was performed considering the costs in the American and Brazilian markets. The color change evaluation (ΔE*ab) was used to calculate the effectiveness of tooth bleaching. A probabilistic analysis was performed using a Monte Carlo simulation and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were obtained. RESULTS: CP10 resulted in the highest cost-effectiveness compared to the use of dentifrices in both markets. In Brazil, HPD was more cost-effective than BCD and CD. In the US, the increased costs of HPD and BCD did not generate any whitening benefit compared to CD. CONCLUSIONS: CP10 was more cost-effective than BCD and HPD for tooth bleaching from the perspectives of the Brazilian and American markets. Decision-making should consider the use of CP10 for treating tooth discoloration.

At-home bleaching versus whitening toothpastes for treatment of tooth discoloration: a cost-effectiveness analysis

Abstract Objectives This study aimed to analyze the cost-effectiveness of whitening toothpastes and at-home bleaching for the treatment of tooth discoloration. Methodology A cost-effectiveness economic analysis was conducted, and eight randomized clinical trials were selected based on the whitening agent product used: blue covarine dentifrices (BCD), hydrogen peroxide dentifrices (HPD), dentifrices without bleaching agents (CD, negative control), and 10% carbamide peroxide (CP10, positive control) for at-home bleaching. The consumer/patient perspective was adopted, macro-costing techniques were used and a decision tree model was performed considering the costs in the American and Brazilian markets. The color change evaluation (ΔE*ab) was used to calculate the effectiveness of tooth bleaching. A probabilistic analysis was performed using a Monte Carlo simulation and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were obtained. Results CP10 resulted in the highest cost-effectiveness compared to the use of dentifrices in both markets. In Brazil, HPD was more cost-effective than BCD and CD. In the US, the increased costs of HPD and BCD did not generate any whitening benefit compared to CD. Conclusions CP10 was more cost-effective than BCD and HPD for tooth bleaching from the perspectives of the Brazilian and American markets. Decision-making should consider the use of CP10 for treating tooth discoloration.

Topical application of Otosporin® before in-office bleaching: a split mouth, triple-blind, multicenter randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate if the topical application of Otosporin® before in-office bleaching with a 35% hydrogen peroxide (HP) gel reduces the risk and intensity of tooth sensitivity (TS), as well as the bleaching effectiveness. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty participants were selected for this split mouth, triple-blind, multicenter randomized clinical trial. Before each bleaching session, the placebo was applied in the patient's hemi-arch and the other half received the Otosporin®, according to the randomization procedure. Both products were applied topically for 10 min. The 35% HP was applied in two sessions with a 1-week interval. The risk and intensity of TS were assessed using the Numerical Scale (NRS) and the Visual Analog Scale (VAS). The bleaching effectiveness were evaluated with the visual scales and with a digital spectrophotometer. The absolute risk of TS was compared by McNemar's test. To compare the intensity of TS, the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to evaluate the NRS, while the paired t test was used to evaluate VAS. Bleaching effectiveness (ΔSGUs and ΔEab, ΔE00, and ΔWID) was compared between groups using the paired t-test (α = 0.05). RESULTS: No significant difference at risk (p = 1.0) and intensity of TS (p > 0.59; VAS and p = 1.00 for NRS) was detected between groups. For both groups, a significant bleaching was observed after 30 days of evaluation (p < 0.39). CONCLUSIONS: The previous application of Otosporin® in the in-office bleaching did not reduce the risk and intensity of TS and did not affect the effectiveness of the bleaching. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The application of Otosporin® before in-office bleaching with 35% HP was not able to reduce the risk and intensity of TS.

Effects of a reduced in-office bleaching protocol with 37.5% hydrogen peroxide on effectiveness and tooth sensitivity: A double-blind randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: This randomized clinical trial evaluated the effectiveness and tooth sensitivity (TS) of 37.5% hydrogen peroxide (37.5HP) in-office bleaching with reduced protocol. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty participants with shade mean C2 or darker for the six maxillary anterior teeth were randomly allocated into two treatment groups (n = 20): two (37.5HP2) or three (37.5HP3) 8 min applications/clinical session. Three clinical sessions were performed with a 1 week interval. Color evaluations were done with a spectrophotometer at baseline and 1 week post-bleaching. TS was measured during and up to 48 h after bleaching using a five-point numeric rating scale. Color change was evaluated by Student's t-test for independent samples. The absolute risk and intensity of TS were analyzed by Fisher's and Mann-Whitney/Friedman tests (p < 0.05). RESULT: Both treatment groups resulted in a significant tooth whitening 1 week post-bleaching (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between 37.5HP2 and 37.5HP3 for ΔE*ab , ΔE00 and ∆WID . Also, there were not differences between groups regarding high absolute risk (p = 1.0) and low intensity of TS at all time assessments (p > 0.7). CONCLUSIONS: The in-office bleaching with two 37.5% HP applications produced the same whitening degree, risk and intensity of TS to that performed with three gel applications. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Clinicians should opt to use a neutral 37.5% HP in-office bleaching gel for two 8 min applications/clinical session because produces the same whitening effectiveness, risk and low intensity of TS as the protocol proposed by manufacturer (three 8 min applications).

SARS-CoV-2 and Saliva: an update

Covid-19 is a respiratory disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The high rate of contagion and the spread of the virus in the population make the early detection of the pathogen the means for the adequate targeting of infection control measures. WHO directs sample collection on upper respiratory specimens, including nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swab or wash in ambulatory patients, as well as lower respiratory specimens: sputum and/or endotracheal aspirate or bronchoalveolar lavage, in addition to citing blood and feces. Among the various sample collection methods, saliva has been investigated and reported as a potential source for diagnosis. Thus, we propose to evaluate the current scenario, based on recent publications on the perspective of detecting SARS-CoV-2 in saliva as a diagnostic method for Covid-19.

SARS-CoV-2 and Saliva as a Diagnostic Tool: A Real Possibility

Abstract Covid-19 is a respiratory disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The high rate of contagion and the spread of the virus in the population make the early detection of the pathogen the means for the adequate targeting of infection control measures. WHO directs sample collection on upper respiratory specimens, including nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swab or wash in ambulatory patients, as well as lower respiratory specimens: sputum and/or endotracheal aspirate or bronchoalveolar lavage, in addition to citing blood and feces. Among the various sample collection methods, saliva has been investigated and reported as a potential source for diagnosis. Thus, we propose to evaluate the current scenario, based on recent publications on the perspective of detecting SARS-CoV-2 in saliva as a diagnostic method for Covid-19. The detection of SARS-CoV-2 through saliva seems to be very promising, although obstacles such as the technique and the location of the collection and the sample size of the research carried out so far may present a limitation for its use. The current scenario presents saliva as a reliable method for the detection of SARS-CoV-2, due to the ease of obtaining the samples, the possibility of self-collection, low cost because there is no need to use specific equipment, in addition to reducing the risk of transmission for health professionals.