Yildirim Esra, Vural Uzay Koc, Cakir Filiz Yalcin, Gurgan Sevil
Hacettepe University, Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry 06100 Sıhhıye/Ankara / Turkey.
Acta Stomatol Croat. 2022 Jun;56(2):120-131. doi: 10.15644/asc56/2/3.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of four over-the-counter (OTC) whitening products on the microhardness, surface roughness, color, shear bond strength (SBS) and surface charecteristics of human enamel compared with a product used for dentist-supervised home whitening.
Seventy eight enamel specimens allocated into 6 groups (n=13): 1-Opalescence PF 10% (OP) dentist prescribed home whitening product, 2-Opalescence Go prefilled tray (PT), 3-Opalescence Whitening Toothpaste (WT), 4-Listerine Healthy White whitening mouth rinse (WMR), 5-Cavex Bite&White whitening pen (WP) and 6- no treatment (Con). The microhardness (VHN), surface roughness (Ra) and color of the specimens were measured (T). The specimens were then subjected to whitening protocols for 14 days (T.) followed by artificial saliva storage for 14 days (T). The measurements were repeated at T and T. The SBS test was done after the application of 35% phosphoric acid (Scotchbond Universal Etchant), followed by a universal adhesive (G-Premio Bond) and a micro hybrid/universal resin composite (Essentia) into a Teflon tube attached to the enamel surface (p<0.05). Surface morphologies of the enamel surfaces were examined by SEM. p value was set at 0.05.
Application of OP, PT and WP decrased the microhardness of enamel specimens (p<0.05) whereas, no significant changes were seen in the microhardness of enamel specimens treated with WT and WMR (p>0.05). Ra values of enamel specimens increased with the application of OP, PT and WT (p<0.05); whereas no changes were observed after the applications of WMR and WP (p>0.05). OP, PT, WMR, and WP changed the color of the enamel(p<0.05). There were not any significant differences among the SBSs groups, apart from OP applied enamel specimens. OP showed the least SBS values (p=0.001). SEM observations revealed smooth enamel surfaces.
The whitening products affected the microhardness, surface roughness, color of enamel differently. Only OP decreased the SBS of the enamel.
本研究旨在评估四种非处方(OTC)美白产品与一种用于牙医指导下家庭美白的产品相比,对人牙釉质的显微硬度、表面粗糙度、颜色、剪切粘结强度(SBS)和表面特性的影响。
将78个牙釉质标本分为6组(n = 13):1 - 欧帕丽白PF 10%(OP),牙医开的家庭美白产品;2 - 欧帕丽白Go预填充托盘(PT);3 - 欧帕丽白美白牙膏(WT);4 - 李施德林健康亮白美白漱口水(WMR);5 - 卡维克咬白美白笔(WP);6 - 未处理(对照)。测量标本的显微硬度(VHN)、表面粗糙度(Ra)和颜色(T)。然后将标本进行14天的美白方案处理(T.),随后在人工唾液中储存14天(T)。在T和T时重复测量。在应用35%磷酸(3M Scotchbond通用蚀刻剂)后进行SBS测试,接着在附着于牙釉质表面的特氟龙管中应用通用粘合剂(G - Premio Bond)和微混合/通用树脂复合材料(Essentia)(p < 0.05)。通过扫描电子显微镜(SEM)检查牙釉质表面的形态。p值设定为0.05。
应用OP、PT和WP降低了牙釉质标本的显微硬度(p < 0.05),而用WT和WMR处理的牙釉质标本的显微硬度未见显著变化(p > 0.05)。牙釉质标本的Ra值随着OP、PT和WT的应用而增加(p < 0.05);而应用WMR和WP后未观察到变化(p > 0.05)。OP、PT、WMR和WP改变了牙釉质的颜色(p < 0.05)。除了应用OP的牙釉质标本外,各SBS组之间没有任何显著差异。OP显示出最低的SBS值(p = 0.001)。SEM观察显示牙釉质表面光滑。
美白产品对牙釉质的显微硬度、表面粗糙度、颜色的影响各不相同。只有OP降低了牙釉质的SBS。