Martin Javier, Fernandez Eduardo, Bahamondes Valeria, Werner Andrea, Elphick Klaus, Oliveira Osmir Batista, Moncada Gustavo
Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Chile, Sergio Livingston 943, Independencia, Santiago, Chile.
Am J Dent. 2013 Feb;26(1):10-4.
To comparatively and prospectively compare in a randomized clinical trial, dentin hypersensitivity after treatment with three in-office bleaching systems, based on hydrogen peroxide at different concentrations, with and without light source activation.
88 individuals were included according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. Subjects were randomly divided into the following three treatment groups: Group 1 was treated with three 15-minute applications of hydrogen peroxide at 15% with titanium dioxide (Lase Peroxide Lite) that was light-activated (Light Plus Whitening Lase) with five cycles of 1 minute and 30 seconds each cycle, giving a total treatment time of 45 minutes; Group 2 was treated with three 10-minute applications of hydrogen peroxide at 35% (Lase Peroxide Sensy), activated by light (LPWL) same activation cycles than Group 1, with a total treatment time of 30 minutes; Group 3 was treated with only one application for 45 minutes of hydrogen peroxide at 35% (Whitegold Office) without light activation. Each subject underwent one session of bleaching on the anterior teeth according to the manufacturers' instructions. Dentin sensitivity was recorded with a visual analogue scale (VAS) at baseline, immediately after, and at 7 and 30 days after treatment using a stimulus of an evaporative blowing triple syringe for 3 seconds on the upper central incisors from a distance of 1 cm. A Kruskal-Wallis test followed by Mann-Whitney test was performed for statistical analysis.
All groups showed increased sensitivity immediately after treatment. Group 1 displayed less changes relative to baseline with no significant differences (P = 0.104). At 7 and 30 days after treatment, a comparison of VAS values indicated no significant differences between all groups (P = 0.598 and 0.489, respectively).
在一项随机临床试验中，对三种基于不同浓度过氧化氢且有无光源激活的诊室漂白系统治疗后的牙本质过敏情况进行比较和前瞻性研究。
根据纳入和排除标准纳入88名个体。受试者被随机分为以下三个治疗组：第1组使用15%过氧化氢与二氧化钛（Lase Peroxide Lite）进行三次15分钟的治疗，经光激活（Light Plus Whitening Lase），每个周期1分30秒，共五个周期，总治疗时间为45分钟；第2组使用35%过氧化氢（Lase Peroxide Sensy）进行三次10分钟的治疗，光激活方式（LPWL）与第1组相同，总治疗时间为30分钟；第3组仅使用35%过氧化氢（Whitegold Office）进行一次45分钟的治疗，无光照激活。每位受试者根据制造商的说明在前牙进行一次漂白治疗。使用视觉模拟量表（VAS）在基线、治疗后即刻、治疗后7天和30天记录牙本质敏感性，使用蒸发吹气三联注射器从1厘米的距离对上颌中切牙刺激3秒。进行Kruskal-Wallis检验，随后进行Mann-Whitney检验进行统计分析。
所有组在治疗后即刻敏感性均增加。第1组相对于基线的变化较小，无显著差异（P = 0.104）。在治疗后7天和30天，VAS值比较表明所有组之间无显著差异（分别为P = 0.598和0.489）。
