Suppr超能文献

使用16%过氧化脲美白溶液时的安全问题。

Safety issues when using a 16% carbamide peroxide whitening solution.

作者信息

Leonard Ralph H, Garland Glenn E, Eagle James C, Caplan Daniel J

机构信息

Department of Diagnostic Sciences and General Dentistry, University of North Carolina School of Dentistry, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599-7450, USA.

出版信息

J Esthet Restor Dent. 2002;14(6):358-67. doi: 10.1111/j.1708-8240.2002.tb00178.x.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The scientific literature is lacking on the occurrence of side effects and other safety issues when using carbamide peroxide whitening solutions of concentrations greater than 10%. This double-blind nightguard vital bleaching study compares safety issues when using 16% carbamide peroxide against a placebo or 10% carbamide peroxide (Nite White Classic by Discus Dental Inc.). Evaluated were changes in gingival index, plaque index, nonmarginal gingival index, nongingival oral mucosal index, tooth vitality, and the patients' perceptions of tooth sensitivity and gingival irritation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty female dental hygiene students participated in the study. Each participant wore a maxillary treatment tray for 1 week without any solution and then for 8 to 10 hours per night for 14 nights, filling each quadrant with placebo, 10% carbamide peroxide, or 16% carbamide peroxide, using a split tray design.

RESULTS

With respect to gingival index, plaque index, nonmarginal gingival index, nongingival oral mucosa index, tooth vitality, and tooth sensitivity, there were no statistically significant differences between the 16% carbamide peroxide solution and the other two solutions (p > .05). Quadrants receiving the 16% carbamide peroxide solution experienced more gingival irritation than quadrants receiving placebo or 10% carbamide peroxide solution (p > .05).

CONCLUSIONS

When evaluating the above-mentioned safety issues, except for gingival irritation, there were no statistically significant differences between a 16% carbamide peroxide solution and 10% carbamide peroxide solution or a placebo when used as described here.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Among the 20 participants whose data were analyzed, it was found that a 16% carbamide peroxide whitening solution (Nite White Classic), when used as described in this study, can be effective in nightguard vital bleaching with no statistical differences in gingival index, plaque index, nonmarginal gingival index, nongingival oral mucosa changes, tooth vitality, or tooth sensitivity, compared with a 10% whitening solution (Nite White Classic). More gingival irritation was experienced with 16% carbamide peroxide. Additionally, 20% of the participants in this study self-reported sensitivity when wearing their treatment tray without any solution, and 36% of the participants reported sensitivity to the placebo solution.

摘要

背景

目前科学文献中缺乏关于使用浓度大于10%的过氧化脲美白溶液时副作用及其他安全问题发生情况的报道。这项双盲夜间护齿漂白研究比较了使用16%过氧化脲与安慰剂或10%过氧化脲(Discus Dental Inc.生产的Nite White Classic)时的安全问题。评估指标包括牙龈指数、菌斑指数、非边缘牙龈指数、非牙龈口腔黏膜指数、牙齿活力以及患者对牙齿敏感和牙龈刺激的感知。

材料与方法

20名女性口腔卫生专业学生参与了该研究。每位参与者佩戴上颌治疗托盘1周,期间不使用任何溶液,然后每晚佩戴8至10小时,共14晚,采用分体托盘设计,每个象限分别填充安慰剂、10%过氧化脲或16%过氧化脲。

结果

在牙龈指数、菌斑指数、非边缘牙龈指数、非牙龈口腔黏膜指数、牙齿活力和牙齿敏感方面,16%过氧化脲溶液与其他两种溶液之间无统计学显著差异(p>.05)。接受16%过氧化脲溶液的象限比接受安慰剂或10%过氧化脲溶液的象限经历了更多的牙龈刺激(p>.05)。

结论

在评估上述安全问题时,除牙龈刺激外,按此处所述使用时,16%过氧化脲溶液与10%过氧化脲溶液或安慰剂之间无统计学显著差异。

临床意义

在分析数据的20名参与者中,发现按本研究所述使用时,16%过氧化脲美白溶液(Nite White Classic)在夜间护齿漂白中有效,与10%美白溶液(Nite White Classic)相比,在牙龈指数、菌斑指数、非边缘牙龈指数、非牙龈口腔黏膜变化、牙齿活力或牙齿敏感方面无统计学差异。16%过氧化脲会引起更多的牙龈刺激。此外,本研究中20%的参与者在佩戴无任何溶液的治疗托盘时自述有敏感症状,36%的参与者报告对安慰剂溶液敏感。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验