IADR Abstract Archives
Effectiveness and Usability of ‘Gel-Wrap’ for Teeth Whitening
Objectives: We recently developed a new product ‘Gel-Wrap’ to overcome the inconvenience of the teeth whitening gel application. In this study, we studied the effectiveness and usability of Gel-Wrap
Methods: In-vitro - Hydroxyapatite discs were artificially Stookey-stained. 6%, 10% hydrogen peroxide (HP) containing Gel-Wrap and 10% HP containing strip were prepared. Directly applied on the stained HAP discs for 30 minutes, and this process was done for 1, 3, 5, 7 times. The in-vitro evaluation was done by measuring the L*, a*, b* value of the color change from the baseline to calculate the overall color change (ΔE).
Use test - 10 consumers had evaluated after use of a HP 3% Gel, HP 6% Gel-Wrap and 10% Gel-Wrap product.
Results: In vitro - ΔE of 6% Gel-Wrap application for 1, 3, 5, 7 times is as respectively: 6.43, 10.27, 22.51, 30.69. For 10% Gel-Wrap: 6.54, 16.96, 30.46, 36.37. For 10% strip: 6.65, 11.58, 19.91, 26.11. The whitening efficacy of 10% Gel-Wrap was the most outstanding with 3, 5, and 7 times of applications when compared to 6% Gel-Wrap and 10% Strip (P<0.000). The whitening efficacy of the 6% Gel-Wrap was comparable to 10% strip with 3 times of the applications, and was even more effective in 5 and 7 times of the applications (P=0.009, P<0.000).
Use test - The stimulus was not significantly different between the 3% and 6% Gel-Wrap. 10% Gel-Wrap resulted in stronger stimulation. In terms of the subjects usability and satisfaction, 6% Gel-Wrap was the highest.
Conclusions: The teeth whitening efficacy of 6% Gel-Wrap and 10% Strip was comparable (in-vitro), and 6% Gel-Wrap was superior over 3% Gel and 10% Gel-Wrap by its usability.
Methods: In-vitro - Hydroxyapatite discs were artificially Stookey-stained. 6%, 10% hydrogen peroxide (HP) containing Gel-Wrap and 10% HP containing strip were prepared. Directly applied on the stained HAP discs for 30 minutes, and this process was done for 1, 3, 5, 7 times. The in-vitro evaluation was done by measuring the L*, a*, b* value of the color change from the baseline to calculate the overall color change (ΔE).
Use test - 10 consumers had evaluated after use of a HP 3% Gel, HP 6% Gel-Wrap and 10% Gel-Wrap product.
Results: In vitro - ΔE of 6% Gel-Wrap application for 1, 3, 5, 7 times is as respectively: 6.43, 10.27, 22.51, 30.69. For 10% Gel-Wrap: 6.54, 16.96, 30.46, 36.37. For 10% strip: 6.65, 11.58, 19.91, 26.11. The whitening efficacy of 10% Gel-Wrap was the most outstanding with 3, 5, and 7 times of applications when compared to 6% Gel-Wrap and 10% Strip (P<0.000). The whitening efficacy of the 6% Gel-Wrap was comparable to 10% strip with 3 times of the applications, and was even more effective in 5 and 7 times of the applications (P=0.009, P<0.000).
Use test - The stimulus was not significantly different between the 3% and 6% Gel-Wrap. 10% Gel-Wrap resulted in stronger stimulation. In terms of the subjects usability and satisfaction, 6% Gel-Wrap was the highest.
Conclusions: The teeth whitening efficacy of 6% Gel-Wrap and 10% Strip was comparable (in-vitro), and 6% Gel-Wrap was superior over 3% Gel and 10% Gel-Wrap by its usability.
