Wiegand Annette, Otto Yvonne A, Attin Thomas
Department of Operative and Preventive Dentistry and Periodontology, University of Göttingen, Robert-Koch-Str. 40, 37070 Göttingen, Germany.
Am J Dent. 2004 Dec;17(6):412-6.
To evaluate in vitro, the effect of different external bleaching agents on the susceptibility of enamel against toothbrushing abrasion.
96 bovine enamel specimens were embedded in acrylic resin, polished and covered with tape except for a 1.4 x 10 mm window. The samples were divided into eight groups (A-H), 12 specimens each (A-G) were treated with seven different home-bleaching (A: Whitestrips, B: Rapid White, C: Opalescence 10%, D: Opalescence PF 15%) and in-office-bleaching agents (E: Opalescence Extra, F: Opalescence Quick, G: Opalescence Extra Boost) according to manufacturers' instructions. Before and after each individual bleaching treatment the samples were brushed 40 times in an automatic brushing machine using a slurry containing artificial saliva and fluoridated toothpaste. The control group (Group H) was not bleached, but also brushed. After each cycle the specimens were stored in artificial saliva for 24 hours.
After 20 cycles loss of enamel was determined by profilometry, resulting in the following values (mean +/- standard deviation) which were statistically analyzed: Group A: (0.169 microm +/- 0.035), Group B (11.108 microm +/- 0.655), Group C (0.207 microm +/- 0.042), Group D (0.154 microm +/- 0.028), Group E (0.081 microm +/- 0.015), Group F (0.084 microm +/- 0.018), Group G (0.087 microm +/- 0.014), Group H (0.076 microm +/- 0.012). Group B differed significantly from the other groups (r = 0.001). Samples of Groups C, D and A showed a significant difference compared to the control H (r = 0.001). Statistical analysis revealed no significant difference between enamel loss of Groups E, F, G and the Control H. It could be proven that toothbrushing abrasion of bleached enamel may be increased depending on the bleaching agent and application form used. Nevertheless, with the exception of bleaching treatment with Rapid White, toothbrushing abrasion of bleached enamel seems to be clinically less relevant.
在体外评估不同外源性漂白剂对牙釉质抗刷牙磨损敏感性的影响。
将96个牛牙釉质标本嵌入丙烯酸树脂中，进行抛光，除了一个1.4×10毫米的窗口外，其余部分用胶带覆盖。样本分为八组（A - H），每组12个标本（A - G）分别用七种不同的家庭漂白剂（A：美白牙贴，B：快速美白，C：皓齿10%，D：皓齿PF 15%）和诊室漂白剂（E：超强皓齿，F：快速皓齿，G：超强皓齿增强型）按照制造商说明进行处理。在每次单独的漂白处理前后，样本在自动刷牙机中使用含有人工唾液和含氟牙膏的糊剂刷牙40次。对照组（H组）不进行漂白，但也进行刷牙。每个周期后，标本在人工唾液中保存24小时。
经过20个周期后，通过轮廓仪测定牙釉质的损失，得出以下数值（平均值±标准差）并进行统计分析：A组：（0.169微米±0.035），B组（11.108微米±0.655），C组（0.207微米±0.042），D组（0.154微米±0.028），E组（0.081微米±0.015），F组（0.084微米±0.018），G组（0.087微米±0.014），H组（0.076微米±0.012）。B组与其他组有显著差异（r = 0.001）。C组、D组和A组的样本与对照组H相比有显著差异（r = 0.001）。统计分析显示E组、F组、G组的牙釉质损失与对照组H之间无显著差异。可以证明，根据所使用的漂白剂和应用形式，漂白牙釉质的刷牙磨损可能会增加。然而，除了使用快速美白进行漂白处理外，漂白牙釉质的刷牙磨损在临床上似乎不太相关。
