Cadenaro Milena, Breschi Lorenzo, Nucci Cesare, Antoniolli Francesca, Visintini Erika, Prati Carlo, Matis Bruce A, Di Lenarda Roberto
Department of Biomedicine, Division of Dental Sciences and Biomaterials, University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy.
Oper Dent. 2008 Mar-Apr;33(2):127-34. doi: 10.2341/07-89.
This study evaluated the morphological effects produced in vivo by two in-office bleaching agents on enamel surface roughness using a noncontact profilometric analysis of epoxy replicas. The null hypothesis tested was that there would be no difference in the micromorphology of the enamel surface during or after bleaching with two different bleaching agents. Eighteen subjects were selected and randomly assigned to two treatment groups (n=9). The tooth whitening materials tested were 38% hydrogen peroxide (HP) (Opalescence Xtra Boost) and 35% carbamide peroxide (CP) (Rembrandt Quik Start). The bleaching agents were applied in accordance with manufacturer protocols. The treatments were repeated four times at one-week intervals. High precision impressions of the upper right incisor were taken at baseline as the control (CTRL) and after each bleaching treatment (T0: first application, T1: second application at one week, T2: third application at two weeks and T3: fourth application at three weeks). Epoxy resin replicas were poured from impressions, and the surface roughness was analyzed by means of a non-contact profilometer (Talysurf CLI 1000). Epoxy replicas were then observed using SEM. All data were statistically analyzed using ANOVA and differences were determined with a t-test. No significant differences in surface roughness were found on enamel replicas using either 38% hydrogen peroxide or 35% carbamide peroxide in vivo. This in vivo study supports the null hypothesis that two in-office bleaching agents, with either a high concentration of hydrogen or carbamide peroxide, do not alter enamel surface roughness, even after multiple applications.
本研究使用环氧复制品的非接触轮廓分析,评估了两种诊室漂白剂在体内对牙釉质表面粗糙度产生的形态学影响。所检验的无效假设是,使用两种不同的漂白剂进行漂白期间或之后,牙釉质表面的微观形态不会存在差异。选择了18名受试者并将其随机分为两个治疗组(n = 9)。所测试的牙齿美白材料为38%过氧化氢(HP)(皓齿特强美白剂)和35%过氧化脲(CP)(伦勃朗快速启动美白剂)。按照制造商的方案应用漂白剂。治疗每隔一周重复进行4次。在基线时作为对照(CTRL)以及每次漂白治疗后(T0:首次应用,T1:一周后第二次应用,T2:两周后第三次应用,T3:三周后第四次应用),对右上颌中切牙进行高精度印模。从印模中灌注环氧树脂复制品,并使用非接触轮廓仪(泰勒霍普森CLI 1000)分析表面粗糙度。然后使用扫描电子显微镜观察环氧树脂复制品。所有数据均使用方差分析进行统计学分析,并通过t检验确定差异。在体内使用38%过氧化氢或35%过氧化脲的牙釉质复制品上,未发现表面粗糙度有显著差异。这项体内研究支持了无效假设,即两种诊室漂白剂,无论是高浓度的过氧化氢还是过氧化脲,即使多次应用也不会改变牙釉质表面粗糙度。