IADR Abstract Archives
Comparison Of Bleaching Products With Different Hydrogen Peroxide Concentrations
Objectives: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effect of 6 different bleaching agents containing ≤6% hydrogen peroxide (HP) on color and enamel surface structure of bovine teeth in comparison with 3 bleaching agents containing ≤40% HP.
Methods: 216 bovine teeth were randomly assigned into 3 groups (first group: home bleaching ≤6% HP - Opalescence® PF, [OP10], Philips ZOOM! NiteWhite, [PNW], Philips ZOOM! DayWhite, [PDW]; second group: in-office bleaching ≤6% HP - Philips ZOOM! 6%, [PZ6], Magic White®, [MW], Smartbleach®, [SB]; third group: in-office bleaching ≥6% HP - Philips ZOOM! 25%, [PZ25], Opalescence Boost, [OB], Philips Dash, [PD]) and bleached according to the manufacturer’s instructions after undergoing an artificial staining process. Color measurement was performed using a spectrophotometer utilizing bleached index and WID before, at baseline, 7, 14, and 21 days after bleaching. Chemical analysis was conducted in order to evaluate the H2O2 concentrations and pH values of the used bleaching products. In addition, the enamel surfaces of two randomly selected specimens of every group were analyzed using scanning electron microscopy (SEM).
Results: In the first group all products, in the second group 1 product (PZ6), and in the third group 2 products (PZ25, OB) resulted in a statistical significant whitening effect after the bleaching procedure. Regarding the chemical evaluation of all tested bleaching agents, 4 products showed higher H2O2 concentration, and 3 products presented lower pH value than described in the manufacturers description. Descriptive SEM analysis showed a correlation of superficial enamel alterations with decreasing pH value, increasing exposure time, and increasing H2O2 concentration.
Conclusions: Products with neutral to alkaline pH value and low H2O2 concentration, in combination with a short exposure time can be recommended for teeth whitening. Furthermore, the use of BI as a patient-friendly index, and WID as a scientific index, should be validated.
Methods: 216 bovine teeth were randomly assigned into 3 groups (first group: home bleaching ≤6% HP - Opalescence® PF, [OP10], Philips ZOOM! NiteWhite, [PNW], Philips ZOOM! DayWhite, [PDW]; second group: in-office bleaching ≤6% HP - Philips ZOOM! 6%, [PZ6], Magic White®, [MW], Smartbleach®, [SB]; third group: in-office bleaching ≥6% HP - Philips ZOOM! 25%, [PZ25], Opalescence Boost, [OB], Philips Dash, [PD]) and bleached according to the manufacturer’s instructions after undergoing an artificial staining process. Color measurement was performed using a spectrophotometer utilizing bleached index and WID before, at baseline, 7, 14, and 21 days after bleaching. Chemical analysis was conducted in order to evaluate the H2O2 concentrations and pH values of the used bleaching products. In addition, the enamel surfaces of two randomly selected specimens of every group were analyzed using scanning electron microscopy (SEM).
Results: In the first group all products, in the second group 1 product (PZ6), and in the third group 2 products (PZ25, OB) resulted in a statistical significant whitening effect after the bleaching procedure. Regarding the chemical evaluation of all tested bleaching agents, 4 products showed higher H2O2 concentration, and 3 products presented lower pH value than described in the manufacturers description. Descriptive SEM analysis showed a correlation of superficial enamel alterations with decreasing pH value, increasing exposure time, and increasing H2O2 concentration.
Conclusions: Products with neutral to alkaline pH value and low H2O2 concentration, in combination with a short exposure time can be recommended for teeth whitening. Furthermore, the use of BI as a patient-friendly index, and WID as a scientific index, should be validated.