Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, State University of Ponta Grossa, Uvaranas, PR, Brazil.
Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, State University of Ponta Grossa, Uvaranas, PR, Brazil.
J Dent. 2018 Mar;70:1-13. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2017.11.007. Epub 2017 Dec 29.
A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to answer the following research question: Does light-activated in-office vital bleaching have a greater whitening efficacy and higher tooth sensitivity (TS) in comparison with in-office vital bleaching without light when used in adults?
Only randomized clinical trials (RCTs) involving adults who had in-office bleaching with and without light activation were included. Controlled vocabulary and keywords were used in a comprehensive search for titles and abstracts in PubMed, and this search was adapted for Scopus, Web of Science, LILACS, BBO, Cochrane Library, and SIGLE without restrictions in May 2016 and was updated in August 2017. IADR abstracts (1990-2016), unpublished- and ongoing-trial registries, dissertations, and theses were also searched. The risk-of-bias tool of the Cochrane Collaboration was used for quality assessment. The quality of the evidence was rated using the Grading of Recommendations: Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. Through the use of the random effects model, a meta-analysis with a subgroup analysis (low and high hydrogen peroxide concentration) was conducted for color change (ΔE*, ΔSGU) as well as the risk and intensity of TS.
We retrieved 6663 articles, but after removing duplicates and non-relevant articles, only 21 RCTs remained. No significant difference in ΔE*, ΔSGU, and risk and intensity of TS was observed (p > .05). For ΔE and risk of TS, the quality of the evidence was graded as moderate whereas the evidence for ΔSGU and intensity of TS was graded as very low and low, respectively.
Without considering variations in the protocols, the activation of in-office bleaching gel with light does not seem to improve color change or affect tooth sensitivity, regardless of the hydrogen peroxide concentration. (PROSPERO - CRD42016037630).
Although it is commercially claimed that in-office bleaching associated with light improves and accelerates color change, this study did not confirm this belief for in-office bleaching gels with either high or low levels of hydrogen peroxide.
进行了系统评价和荟萃分析,以回答以下研究问题:在成年人中,与不使用光的诊室活髓牙漂白相比,使用光激活诊室活髓牙漂白是否具有更高的美白效果和更高的牙齿敏感性(TS)?
仅纳入了涉及使用和不使用光激活诊室漂白的成年人的随机临床试验(RCT)。在 2016 年 5 月,使用 PubMed 中的受控词汇和关键词全面搜索标题和摘要,并对 Scopus、Web of Science、LILACS、BBO、Cochrane 图书馆和 SIGLE 进行了适应性搜索,且没有限制。2017 年 8 月进行了更新。还搜索了 IADR 摘要(1990-2016 年)、未发表和正在进行的试验登记处、论文和学位论文。使用 Cochrane 协作的偏倚风险工具进行质量评估。使用推荐评估、制定与评价方法对证据质量进行评级。通过使用随机效应模型,对颜色变化(ΔE*、ΔSGU)以及 TS 的风险和强度进行了荟萃分析和亚组分析(低和高浓度过氧化氢)。
我们检索了 6663 篇文章,但在去除重复项和不相关的文章后,只剩下 21 项 RCT。在 ΔE*、ΔSGU 以及 TS 的风险和强度方面,未观察到差异有统计学意义(p>0.05)。对于 ΔE 和 TS 的风险,证据质量被评为中等,而对于 ΔSGU 和 TS 的强度,证据质量分别被评为非常低和低。
在不考虑方案变化的情况下,用光激活诊室漂白凝胶似乎不会改善颜色变化或影响牙齿敏感性,无论过氧化氢浓度如何。(PROSPERO-CRD42016037630)。
尽管商业上声称与光结合的诊室漂白可改善和加速颜色变化,但这项研究并未证实高或低浓度过氧化氢的诊室漂白凝胶具有这种效果。