Suppr超能文献

在一项随机临床试验中,使用两种诊室漂白方案对6%过氧化氢凝胶的有效性和敏感性比较

Comparison of Effectiveness and Sensitivity Using Two In-Office Bleaching Protocols for a 6% Hydrogen Peroxide Gel in a Randomized Clinical Trial.

作者信息

Vildósola P, Vera F, Ramírez J, Rencoret J, Pretel H, Oliveira O B, Tonetto M, Martín J, Fernández E

出版信息

Oper Dent. 2017 May/Jun;42(3):244-252. doi: 10.2341/16-043-C.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this blinded and randomized clinical trial was to compare two application protocols (one 36-minute application vs three 12-minute applications). We then assessed the effectiveness of the bleaching and any increase in sensitivity that was induced by bleaching via a split-mouth design.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Thirty patients were treated. One group had a half arch of teeth treated with a traditional application protocol (group A: 3 × 12 minutes for two sessions). The other received an abbreviated protocol (group B: 1 × 36 minutes over two sessions). Two sessions were appointed with a two-day interval between them. The tooth color was registered at each session, as well as one week and one month after completing the treatment via a spectrophotometer. This measured L*, a*, and b*. This was also evaluated subjectively using the VITA classical A1-D4 guide and VITA Bleachedguide 3D-MASTER. Tooth sensitivity was registered according to the visual analogue scale (VAS) scale. Tooth color variation and sensitivity were compared between groups.

RESULTS

Both treatments changed tooth color vs baseline. The ΔE* = 5.71 ± 2.62 in group A, and ΔE* = 4.93 ± 2.09 in group B one month after completing the bleaching (p=0.20). No statistical differences were seen via subjective evaluations. There were no differences in tooth sensitivity between the groups. The absolute risk of sensitivity reported for both groups was 6.25% (p=0.298). The intensity by VAS was mild (p=1.00).

CONCLUSIONS

We used hydrogen peroxide (6%) that was light activated with a hybrid LED/laser and two different protocols (one 36-minute application vs three 12-minute applications each for two sessions). These approaches were equally effective. There were no differences in absolute risk of sensitivity; both groups reported mild sensitivity.

摘要

目的

本双盲随机临床试验旨在比较两种应用方案(一次36分钟应用与三次12分钟应用)。然后,我们通过双盲设计评估漂白的有效性以及漂白引起的任何敏感性增加情况。

方法和材料

对30名患者进行了治疗。一组患者半口牙齿采用传统应用方案治疗(A组:分两个疗程,每次12分钟,共3次)。另一组接受简化方案治疗(B组:分两个疗程,每次36分钟)。两个疗程间隔两天进行。每次疗程时以及治疗结束后一周和一个月,使用分光光度计记录牙齿颜色,测量L*、a和b值。同时,使用VITA经典A1 - D4比色板和VITA Bleachedguide 3D - MASTER进行主观评估。根据视觉模拟量表(VAS)记录牙齿敏感性。比较两组之间的牙齿颜色变化和敏感性。

结果

与基线相比,两种治疗均改变了牙齿颜色。漂白完成后一个月,A组的ΔE* = 5.71 ± 2.62,B组的ΔE* = 4.93 ± 2.09(p = 0.20)。主观评估未发现统计学差异。两组之间牙齿敏感性无差异。两组报告的敏感性绝对风险均为6.25%(p = 0.298)。VAS评定的敏感强度为轻度(p = 1.00)。

结论

我们使用了6%的过氧化氢,通过混合LED/激光进行光激活,并采用两种不同方案(一次36分钟应用与每次12分钟共三次,各进行两个疗程)。这些方法效果相同。敏感性绝对风险无差异;两组均报告有轻度敏感性。

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