In-office dental bleaching in adolescents using 6% hydrogen peroxide with and without gingival barrier: a randomized double-blind clinical trial

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Carneiro, Taynara de Souza
Data de Publicação: 2024
Outros Autores: Favoreto, Michael Willian, Rodrigues, João Pedro Ferreira, Sutil, Elisama, Centenaro, Gabrielle Gomes, Freitas, Isabela de Matos de, Reis, Alessandra, García, Laura Ceballos, Loguercio, Alessandro Dourado
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Journal of applied oral science (Online)
Texto Completo: https://www.revistas.usp.br/jaos/article/view/223389
Resumo: At low concentrations used for in-office bleaching gels, such as 6% HP, gingival barrier continues to be performed. If we take into account that, in the at-home bleaching technique, no barrier is indicated, it seems that the use of a gingival barrier fails to make much sense when bleaching gel in low concentration is used for in-office bleaching. Objective: This double-blind, split-mouth, randomized clinical trial evaluated the gingival irritation (GI) of in-office bleaching using 6% hydrogen peroxide (HP) with and without a gingival barrier in adolescents, as well as color change and the impact of oral condition on quality of life. Methodology: Overall, 60 participants were randomized into which side would or would not receive the gingival barrier. In-office bleaching was performed for 50 minutes with 6% HP in three sessions. The absolute risk and intensity of GI were assessed with a visual analogue scale. Color change was assessed using a digital spectrophotometer and color guides. The impact of oral condition on quality of life was assessed using the Brazilian version of the Oral Health Impact Profile (α=0.05). Results: The proportion of patients who presented GI for the “with barrier” group was 31.6% and for the “without barrier” group, 30% (p=1.0). There is an equivalence for the evaluated groups regarding GI intensity (p<0.01). Color change was detected with no statistical differences (p>0.29). There was a significant impact of oral condition on quality of life after bleaching (p<0.001). Conclusions: The use or not of the gingival barrier for in-office bleaching with 6% HP was equivalent for GI, as well as for bleaching efficacy, with improvement in the impact of oral condition on quality of life.
id USP-17_35eb0280a89e4da28386497bea69b7c5
oai_identifier_str oai:revistas.usp.br:article/223389
network_acronym_str USP-17
network_name_str Journal of applied oral science (Online)
repository_id_str
spelling In-office dental bleaching in adolescents using 6% hydrogen peroxide with and without gingival barrier: a randomized double-blind clinical trialTooth bleaching agentsHydrogen peroxideGingivaClinical trialAdolescentRCTTeeth whiteningAt low concentrations used for in-office bleaching gels, such as 6% HP, gingival barrier continues to be performed. If we take into account that, in the at-home bleaching technique, no barrier is indicated, it seems that the use of a gingival barrier fails to make much sense when bleaching gel in low concentration is used for in-office bleaching. Objective: This double-blind, split-mouth, randomized clinical trial evaluated the gingival irritation (GI) of in-office bleaching using 6% hydrogen peroxide (HP) with and without a gingival barrier in adolescents, as well as color change and the impact of oral condition on quality of life. Methodology: Overall, 60 participants were randomized into which side would or would not receive the gingival barrier. In-office bleaching was performed for 50 minutes with 6% HP in three sessions. The absolute risk and intensity of GI were assessed with a visual analogue scale. Color change was assessed using a digital spectrophotometer and color guides. The impact of oral condition on quality of life was assessed using the Brazilian version of the Oral Health Impact Profile (α=0.05). Results: The proportion of patients who presented GI for the “with barrier” group was 31.6% and for the “without barrier” group, 30% (p=1.0). There is an equivalence for the evaluated groups regarding GI intensity (p<0.01). Color change was detected with no statistical differences (p>0.29). There was a significant impact of oral condition on quality of life after bleaching (p<0.001). Conclusions: The use or not of the gingival barrier for in-office bleaching with 6% HP was equivalent for GI, as well as for bleaching efficacy, with improvement in the impact of oral condition on quality of life.Universidade de São Paulo. Faculdade de Odontologia de Bauru2024-03-26info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfhttps://www.revistas.usp.br/jaos/article/view/22338910.1590/Journal of Applied Oral Science; Vol. 32 (2024); e20230416Journal of Applied Oral Science; v. 32 (2024); e20230416Journal of Applied Oral Science; Vol. 32 (2024); e202304161678-77651678-7757reponame:Journal of applied oral science (Online)instname:Universidade de São Paulo (USP)instacron:USPenghttps://www.revistas.usp.br/jaos/article/view/223389/203488Copyright (c) 2024 Journal of Applied Oral Sciencehttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessCarneiro, Taynara de SouzaFavoreto, Michael WillianRodrigues, João Pedro FerreiraSutil, ElisamaCentenaro, Gabrielle GomesFreitas, Isabela de Matos deReis, AlessandraGarcía, Laura CeballosLoguercio, Alessandro Dourado2024-03-26T14:46:34Zoai:revistas.usp.br:article/223389Revistahttp://www.scielo.br/jaosPUBhttps://www.revistas.usp.br/jaos/oai||jaos@usp.br1678-77651678-7757opendoar:2024-03-26T14:46:34Journal of applied oral science (Online) - Universidade de São Paulo (USP)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv In-office dental bleaching in adolescents using 6% hydrogen peroxide with and without gingival barrier: a randomized double-blind clinical trial
title In-office dental bleaching in adolescents using 6% hydrogen peroxide with and without gingival barrier: a randomized double-blind clinical trial
spellingShingle In-office dental bleaching in adolescents using 6% hydrogen peroxide with and without gingival barrier: a randomized double-blind clinical trial
Carneiro, Taynara de Souza
Tooth bleaching agents
Hydrogen peroxide
Gingiva
Clinical trial
Adolescent
RCT
Teeth whitening
title_short In-office dental bleaching in adolescents using 6% hydrogen peroxide with and without gingival barrier: a randomized double-blind clinical trial
title_full In-office dental bleaching in adolescents using 6% hydrogen peroxide with and without gingival barrier: a randomized double-blind clinical trial
title_fullStr In-office dental bleaching in adolescents using 6% hydrogen peroxide with and without gingival barrier: a randomized double-blind clinical trial
title_full_unstemmed In-office dental bleaching in adolescents using 6% hydrogen peroxide with and without gingival barrier: a randomized double-blind clinical trial
title_sort In-office dental bleaching in adolescents using 6% hydrogen peroxide with and without gingival barrier: a randomized double-blind clinical trial
author Carneiro, Taynara de Souza
author_facet Carneiro, Taynara de Souza
Favoreto, Michael Willian
Rodrigues, João Pedro Ferreira
Sutil, Elisama
Centenaro, Gabrielle Gomes
Freitas, Isabela de Matos de
Reis, Alessandra
García, Laura Ceballos
Loguercio, Alessandro Dourado
author_role author
author2 Favoreto, Michael Willian
Rodrigues, João Pedro Ferreira
Sutil, Elisama
Centenaro, Gabrielle Gomes
Freitas, Isabela de Matos de
Reis, Alessandra
García, Laura Ceballos
Loguercio, Alessandro Dourado
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Carneiro, Taynara de Souza
Favoreto, Michael Willian
Rodrigues, João Pedro Ferreira
Sutil, Elisama
Centenaro, Gabrielle Gomes
Freitas, Isabela de Matos de
Reis, Alessandra
García, Laura Ceballos
Loguercio, Alessandro Dourado
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Tooth bleaching agents
Hydrogen peroxide
Gingiva
Clinical trial
Adolescent
RCT
Teeth whitening
topic Tooth bleaching agents
Hydrogen peroxide
Gingiva
Clinical trial
Adolescent
RCT
Teeth whitening
description At low concentrations used for in-office bleaching gels, such as 6% HP, gingival barrier continues to be performed. If we take into account that, in the at-home bleaching technique, no barrier is indicated, it seems that the use of a gingival barrier fails to make much sense when bleaching gel in low concentration is used for in-office bleaching. Objective: This double-blind, split-mouth, randomized clinical trial evaluated the gingival irritation (GI) of in-office bleaching using 6% hydrogen peroxide (HP) with and without a gingival barrier in adolescents, as well as color change and the impact of oral condition on quality of life. Methodology: Overall, 60 participants were randomized into which side would or would not receive the gingival barrier. In-office bleaching was performed for 50 minutes with 6% HP in three sessions. The absolute risk and intensity of GI were assessed with a visual analogue scale. Color change was assessed using a digital spectrophotometer and color guides. The impact of oral condition on quality of life was assessed using the Brazilian version of the Oral Health Impact Profile (α=0.05). Results: The proportion of patients who presented GI for the “with barrier” group was 31.6% and for the “without barrier” group, 30% (p=1.0). There is an equivalence for the evaluated groups regarding GI intensity (p<0.01). Color change was detected with no statistical differences (p>0.29). There was a significant impact of oral condition on quality of life after bleaching (p<0.001). Conclusions: The use or not of the gingival barrier for in-office bleaching with 6% HP was equivalent for GI, as well as for bleaching efficacy, with improvement in the impact of oral condition on quality of life.
publishDate 2024
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2024-03-26
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv https://www.revistas.usp.br/jaos/article/view/223389
10.1590/
url https://www.revistas.usp.br/jaos/article/view/223389
identifier_str_mv 10.1590/
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv https://www.revistas.usp.br/jaos/article/view/223389/203488
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv Copyright (c) 2024 Journal of Applied Oral Science
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv Copyright (c) 2024 Journal of Applied Oral Science
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Universidade de São Paulo. Faculdade de Odontologia de Bauru
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Universidade de São Paulo. Faculdade de Odontologia de Bauru
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Journal of Applied Oral Science; Vol. 32 (2024); e20230416
Journal of Applied Oral Science; v. 32 (2024); e20230416
Journal of Applied Oral Science; Vol. 32 (2024); e20230416
1678-7765
1678-7757
reponame:Journal of applied oral science (Online)
instname:Universidade de São Paulo (USP)
instacron:USP
instname_str Universidade de São Paulo (USP)
instacron_str USP
institution USP
reponame_str Journal of applied oral science (Online)
collection Journal of applied oral science (Online)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Journal of applied oral science (Online) - Universidade de São Paulo (USP)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv ||jaos@usp.br
_version_ 1800221670447775744