Comparison of the clinical efficacy of different vital bleaching systems

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical efficacy of two different vital bleaching systems at the beginning and after one-year control period and possible adverse effects derived from their use. One gel containing 28% carbamide peroxide (Meta Tray, Remedent, Belgium) was compared with a carbamide peroxide-based gel with a concentration of 10% (Opalescence, Ultradent, USA). Methods: Twenty healty volunteers recruited to this study were seperated into two sample groups each composed of 10. All patients employed both bleaching products to the maxillary and mandibular arch according to the manufacturer′s instructions. Meta Tray was employed 20 minutes for each arch in a day during 10 days. Opalescence was used 6-8 hours during night for 10 days. The degree of bleaching was evaluated using the digital Vita guide (Vita Easyshade, Vident, USA) at the end of the bleaching therapy and after one-year control period. Dental sensitivity was measured with a specially designed 4-point scale. Gingival irritation was registered by the presence or absence of lesions in the marginal gingiva related to treatment. Results: The degree of bleaching of Opalescence was found superior than Meta Tray both after the bleaching therapy and one-year control period (p<0.05). The reduction in the bleaching therapy was not significant in both groups after one-year (p>0.05). Meta Tray product provoked less dental sensitivity (p<0.05). However, gingival irritation appeared in 9 subjects of this group (p<0.05). Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that both products produced significant bleaching effect. However, the clinical efficacy of Opalescence as a home-bleaching system was found superior than Meta Tray.