Mondelli Rfl, Rizzante Fap, Rosa E R, Borges Afs, Furuse A Y, Bombonatti Jfs
Oper Dent. 2018 Jan/Feb;43(1):31-37. doi: 10.2341/16-208-C.
The present in vivo randomized, triple-blinded, and split-mouth clinical study evaluated the effectiveness of a hybrid light (HL) source on the color change, stability, and tooth sensitivity in patients submitted to different in-office bleaching techniques. Twenty volunteers were divided into two groups and four subgroups. A split-mouth design was conducted to compare two in-office bleaching techniques (with and without light activation): 35% Lase Peroxide Sensy (LPS) + HL: 35% hydrogen peroxide (HP) + HL; 35% LPS: 35% HP; 25% LPS + HL: 25% HP + HL; and 35% Whiteness HP (WHP): 35% HP. For the groups activated with HL, the HP was applied on the enamel surface three consecutive times using a 3 × 2-minute protocol (three HL activations for two minutes each, with a 30-second interval for a total of seven minutes and 30 seconds) for each gel application, totaling 22 minutes and 30 seconds. For the other groups, HP was applied 3 × 15 minutes, totaling 45 minutes. A spectrophotometer was used to measure the color change (ΔE) before the treatment and 24 hours, one week, and one, 12, and 36 months after. A visual analog scale was used to evaluate the tooth sensitivity before the treatment, immediately following treatment, 24 hours, and one week after. Analysis of variance, Tukey's, Kruskall-Wallis, and Wilcoxon tests, all with α = 0.05 were performed. Statistical analysis did not reveal any significant differences (ΔE) between the in-office bleaching techniques with or without HL in the periods evaluated; the activation with HL required 50% less time to achieve such results. The groups without HL presented statistical differences for ΔE when comparing 24 hours with the other follow-up times (intergroup) and an increase in tooth sensitivity in the initial periods. All techniques and bleaching agents were effective on bleaching during a 36-month evaluation of color stability. The groups activated with HL presented lower sensitivity and required a lower activation time.
本体内随机、三盲、分口临床研究评估了混合光（HL）光源对接受不同诊室漂白技术的患者牙齿颜色变化、稳定性及牙齿敏感性的影响。20名志愿者被分为两组及四个亚组。采用分口设计比较两种诊室漂白技术（有光激活和无光激活）：35% Lase Peroxide Sensy（LPS）+HL：35%过氧化氢（HP）+HL；35% LPS：35% HP；25% LPS +HL：25% HP +HL；以及35% Whiteness HP（WHP）：35% HP。对于用HL激活的组，每次凝胶涂抹时，HP在牙釉质表面连续涂抹3次，采用3×2分钟方案（每次HL激活2分钟，共3次，间隔30秒，总计7分30秒），每次凝胶涂抹总计22分30秒。对于其他组，HP涂抹3×15分钟，总计45分钟。使用分光光度计在治疗前、治疗后24小时、1周以及1、12和36个月测量颜色变化（ΔE）。使用视觉模拟量表在治疗前、治疗后即刻、24小时和1周评估牙齿敏感性。进行方差分析、Tukey检验、Kruskall-Wallis检验和Wilcoxon检验，所有检验的α = 0.05。统计分析未发现评估期间有或无HL的诊室漂白技术之间存在任何显著差异（ΔE）；用HL激活达到这些结果所需时间减少50%。在比较24小时与其他随访时间（组间）时，无光激活组的ΔE存在统计学差异，且在初始阶段牙齿敏感性增加。在36个月的颜色稳定性评估中，所有技术和漂白剂在漂白方面均有效。用HL激活的组敏感性较低且所需激活时间较短。
