IADR Abstract Archives
Whitening Efficacy of Colgate LED Device vs. Commercially Available Competitors
Objectives: To evaluate the in-vitro whitening activity of a new Colgate LED device whitening system and three commercially available LED whitening systems.
Methods: Four LED whitening systems were evaluated: a Colgate LED Whitening system and three commercially available LED device systems; HiSmile, Snow, and Crest 3D White Light. The whitening efficacy of all systems was compared by in-vitro methods. Artificially stained bovine enamel slabs were brushed to an L value of 58-66 using silica toothpaste. Baseline CieLab measurements were recorded. Each enamel slab was assigned to a whitening system, treated according to manufacturer’s instructions, and monitored via CieLab measurements. A whitening index, ΔW* (where W* = ((L*100)2 + a2 + b2)1/2), whitening efficiency (where whitening efficiency = ΔW*/minutes of total treatment time), statistical analysis and LED device analysis was completed and reported.
Results: After completion of manufacturer’s instructions, the Colgate LED whitening device system delivered a total ΔW* of -26.95 while HiSmile, Snow, and Crest 3D White Light delivered 0.41, -22.82, and -16.38, respectively. When comparing whitening efficiency, Colgate delivered -0.26 ΔW*/min and HiSmile, Snow, and Crest 3D White delivered 0.007, -0.142, -0.029 ΔW*/min, respectively. Colgate LED device, has a steady power output, 0.07 watts. Battery powered units, HiSmile and Crest 3D White Light showed lower and more variable outputs. Snow, externally powered, showed higher power output but large variations depending on power source (mobile phone vs. wall outlet). The three commercially available LED devices provided ~460-465 nm light, while the Colgate device provided 410nm light.
Conclusions: The Colgate LED device whitening system delivers superior in-vitro whitening efficacy, efficiency, more energetic wavelength of light and a steady power output.
Methods: Four LED whitening systems were evaluated: a Colgate LED Whitening system and three commercially available LED device systems; HiSmile, Snow, and Crest 3D White Light. The whitening efficacy of all systems was compared by in-vitro methods. Artificially stained bovine enamel slabs were brushed to an L value of 58-66 using silica toothpaste. Baseline CieLab measurements were recorded. Each enamel slab was assigned to a whitening system, treated according to manufacturer’s instructions, and monitored via CieLab measurements. A whitening index, ΔW* (where W* = ((L*100)2 + a2 + b2)1/2), whitening efficiency (where whitening efficiency = ΔW*/minutes of total treatment time), statistical analysis and LED device analysis was completed and reported.
Results: After completion of manufacturer’s instructions, the Colgate LED whitening device system delivered a total ΔW* of -26.95 while HiSmile, Snow, and Crest 3D White Light delivered 0.41, -22.82, and -16.38, respectively. When comparing whitening efficiency, Colgate delivered -0.26 ΔW*/min and HiSmile, Snow, and Crest 3D White delivered 0.007, -0.142, -0.029 ΔW*/min, respectively. Colgate LED device, has a steady power output, 0.07 watts. Battery powered units, HiSmile and Crest 3D White Light showed lower and more variable outputs. Snow, externally powered, showed higher power output but large variations depending on power source (mobile phone vs. wall outlet). The three commercially available LED devices provided ~460-465 nm light, while the Colgate device provided 410nm light.
Conclusions: The Colgate LED device whitening system delivers superior in-vitro whitening efficacy, efficiency, more energetic wavelength of light and a steady power output.