Jum'ah Ahmad, Kothari Siddharth, Gray Andrew R, Ratnayake Jithendra, Leov Felicity, Lyons Karl, Brunton Paul A
Jordan University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Conservative Dentistry, Irbid 22110, Jordan.
University of Otago, Faculty of Dentistry, 310 Great King Street, Dunedin 9016, New Zealand.
Saudi Dent J. 2024 Jan;36(1):77-83. doi: 10.1016/j.sdentj.2023.09.010. Epub 2023 Sep 29.
This study aimed to compare changes in oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) resulting from three vital tooth bleaching protocols.
The participants (n = 105) were randomly assigned to one of three vital bleaching treatment groups: home bleaching (HB), in-office bleaching (IOB), or combined bleaching (CB). HB involved the use of custom-made trays and 10% carbamide peroxide for a 14-day treatment period. IOB utilized 37.5% hydrogen peroxide applied in three cycles. CB treatment involved the use of IOB followed by HB. Tooth colour change was evaluated using a shade guide (ΔVS) and a digital spectrophotometry device (ΔES). The Oral Health Impact Profile-14 (OHIP-14) and Oral Impact on Daily Performance-22 (OIDP-22) instruments were used to assess changes in OHRQoL at baseline, 15-days and 6-month recalls. Linear mixed models were used to estimate between- and within-group differences.
All bleaching protocols led to significant improvements in overall OHIP-14 scores at the 6-month recall (p ≤ 0.037). CB and IOB treatments were associated with more substantial positive impacts on overall scores, psychological discomfort, physical disability (CB only), and psychological disability (CB only) compared to HB (p ≤ 0.011). Significant enhancements in OIDP-22 scores were observed in the CB and HB groups at the 6-month recall compared to baseline (p ≤ 0.006), with evidence indicating that these improvements were greater in the CB group compared to the IOB group (p = 0.007).
All bleaching treatments demonstrated a positive impact on OHRQoL. However, the positive impact was most consistent across domains and age groups in the CB group. The positive impact was less pronounced in older age groups.
本研究旨在比较三种活髓牙漂白方案对口腔健康相关生活质量（OHRQoL）的影响。
105名参与者被随机分配到三种活髓漂白治疗组之一：家庭漂白（HB）、诊室漂白（IOB）或联合漂白（CB）。HB使用定制托盘和10%的过氧化脲进行为期14天的治疗。IOB使用37.5%的过氧化氢分三个周期进行。CB治疗是先进行IOB，然后进行HB。使用比色板（ΔVS）和数字分光光度计设备（ΔES）评估牙齿颜色变化。使用口腔健康影响程度量表-14（OHIP-14）和日常表现口腔影响量表-22（OIDP-22）在基线、15天和6个月回访时评估OHRQoL的变化。使用线性混合模型估计组间和组内差异。
在6个月回访时，所有漂白方案均使OHIP-14总分有显著改善（p≤0.037）。与HB相比，CB和IOB治疗对总分、心理不适、身体残疾（仅CB）和心理残疾（仅CB）有更显著的积极影响（p≤0.011）。与基线相比，在6个月回访时，CB组和HB组的OIDP-22得分有显著提高（p≤0.006），有证据表明CB组的改善比IOB组更大（p=0.007）。
所有漂白治疗均对OHRQoL有积极影响。然而，CB组在各领域和年龄组中的积极影响最为一致。在老年组中，积极影响不太明显。
