In-office dental bleaching in adolescents using 6% hydrogen peroxide with and without gingival barrier: a randomized double-blind clinical trial
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2024 |
Outros Autores: | , , , , , , , |
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 |