In-office tooth bleaching effectiveness with different soft-tissue barriers - randomized controlled trial

3Citations
Citations of this article
14Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate the tooth bleaching effectiveness of a 6% hydrogen peroxide paint-on varnish with two different types of soft-tissue protection materials. Methods: Twenty patients were screened according to inclusion and exclusion criteria, submitted to professional dental prophylaxis, and randomly allocated to one of the two groups. An in-office bleaching technique protocol was performed (VivaStyle Paint On PIus, lvoclar- Vivadent®, Liechtenstein) with two different soft-tissue protection materials: Group 1 - Vaseline; Group 2 - block-out resin. Bleaching effectiveness was evaluated with ΔE00 and ΔWID, calculated from the CIE L*a*b*values obtained by spectrophotometry analysis (SpectroShade). Appropriate statistical tests were performed to analyze intragroup differences in CIE L*a*b*and WID values and intergroup differences in ΔE00 and ΔWID with α=0.05. Results: Both groups presented statistically significant (P<0.01) differences in CIE L*a*b*and WID. Both ΔE00 and ΔWID surpassed the acceptability threshold (ΔE00 > 1.8; ΔWID > 2.60), and the ΔWID was mostly classified as hardly acceptable differences. Group 2 presented higher statistically significant (P<0.01) mean values with ΔE00 = 3.5 ± 1.5 and ΔWID = 8.6 ± 4.2. Conclusions: The 6% hydrogen peroxide paint-on varnish tooth bleaching technique showed clinical effectiveness. However, effectiveness varied with the soft-tissue protection material used, with better results when applying a block-out resin, thus suggesting its clinical recommendation.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Cardoso, A. B., Pereira, R., Silveira, J., Dias, S., Mata, A., & Marques, D. (2021). In-office tooth bleaching effectiveness with different soft-tissue barriers - randomized controlled trial. Revista Portuguesa de Estomatologia, Medicina Dentaria e Cirurgia Maxilofacial, 62(3), 141–149. https://doi.org/10.24873/j.rpemd.2021.07.840

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free