Department of General Dentistry & National Center of Stomatology & National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases & National Engineering Research Center of Oral Biomaterials and Digital Medical Devices, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology, Beijing 100081, China.
Eastman Institute for Oral Health, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY 14620, USA.
Medicina (Kaunas). 2023 Jun 12;59(6):1130. doi: 10.3390/medicina59061130.
: Tooth whitening is a relatively conservative and effective option to treat discolored teeth. However, questions remain whether in-office or at-home tooth whitening products with short treatment durations are as effective and stable as products with longer treatment durations. : Forty human third molars with intact enamel surfaces were divided into four groups of ten each, subjected to discoloration challenges with coffee for 60 h, and they were treated with four professional tooth whitening systems: two for take-home use-6% hydrogen peroxide for 30 min/d for a total of 7 h in 14 days (HP6), 10% carbamide peroxide for 10 h/d for 140 h in 14 days (CP10), as well as two for in-office use-35% HP for 10 min × 3 (HP35) for a total of 30 min and 40% HP for 20 min × 3 (HP40) for a total of 60 min. Teeth colors were assessed in the CIE Lab* color space with a spectrophotometer immediately and six months after whitening treatments. Surface roughness (Sa) for the treated and untreated enamel surfaces of the teeth in all groups were evaluated with a three-dimensional laser scanning microscope after six months. : No significant differences were found between HP6 and CP10 groups immediately after whitening (∆ 10.6 ± 1.6 vs. 11.4 ± 1.7, > 0.05) and at six months after treatments (∆ 9.0 ± 1.9 vs. 9.2 ± 2.5, > 0.05), or between HP35 and HP40 groups immediately after whitening (∆ 5.9 ± 1.2 vs. 5.3 ± 1.7, > 0.05) and at six months after treatments (∆ 7.2 ± 1.6 vs. 7.7 ± 1.3, > 0.05). The two at-home whitening systems achieved significantly better whitening outcomes than the two in-office products immediately after whitening ( < 0.05). However, at six months after treatments, the differences between at-home and in-office treatments had narrowed significantly ( > 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences with respect to the Sa values between the treated and untreated surfaces ( > 0.05). : Tooth whitening products in the same product category have similar whitening efficacies, despite significant differences in treatment durations (7 vs. 140 h, and 30 min vs. 60 min, respectively). Take-home products achieved better whitening outcomes than in-office products, but they needed 14 to 280 times longer treatment durations.
牙齿美白是一种相对保守且有效的治疗变色牙齿的方法。然而,人们仍然存在疑问,即短期治疗(持续 7 天,每天 30 分钟)的诊室用和家庭用美白产品是否与长期治疗(持续 14 天,每天 10 小时)的产品同样有效且稳定。
将 40 颗具有完整釉质表面的人第三磨牙分为四组,每组 10 颗,用咖啡进行为期 60 小时的染色挑战,然后用四种专业的牙齿美白系统进行处理:两种家庭用产品-6%双氧水,每天使用 30 分钟,持续 7 天,共 7 小时(HP6);10%过氧化脲,每天使用 10 小时,持续 140 小时,持续 14 天(CP10);两种诊室用产品-35%双氧水,每次使用 10 分钟,共使用 3 次(HP35),总时长 30 分钟;40%双氧水,每次使用 20 分钟,共使用 3 次(HP40),总时长 60 分钟。用分光光度计立即和美白治疗后 6 个月评估牙齿在 CIE Lab*颜色空间中的颜色。所有组的牙齿治疗和未治疗的釉质表面的粗糙度(Sa)在 6 个月后用三维激光扫描显微镜评估。
美白治疗后即刻,HP6 和 CP10 组之间无显著差异(∆ 10.6 ± 1.6 vs. 11.4 ± 1.7,> 0.05),治疗后 6 个月时也无显著差异(∆ 9.0 ± 1.9 vs. 9.2 ± 2.5,> 0.05);HP35 和 HP40 组之间即刻和治疗后 6 个月时也无显著差异(∆ 5.9 ± 1.2 vs. 5.3 ± 1.7,> 0.05)和(∆ 7.2 ± 1.6 vs. 7.7 ± 1.3,> 0.05)。两种家庭用美白系统在美白治疗后即刻的效果明显优于两种诊室用产品(< 0.05)。然而,治疗后 6 个月时,家庭用和诊室用治疗之间的差异明显缩小(> 0.05)。治疗和未治疗表面之间的 Sa 值无统计学差异(> 0.05)。
同一产品类别中的牙齿美白产品具有相似的美白效果,尽管治疗时间存在显著差异(分别为 7 小时和 140 小时,30 分钟和 60 分钟)。家庭用产品的美白效果优于诊室用产品,但需要 14 到 280 倍更长的治疗时间。