Universidade Estadual de Ponta Grossa, Departamento de Dentística Restauradora, Ponta Grossa, Brasil.
Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud, IDIBO, Madrid, España.
J Appl Oral Sci. 2024 Mar 25;32:e20230416. doi: 10.1590/1678-7757-2023-0416. eCollection 2024.
At low concentrations used for in-office bleaching gels, such as 6% HP, gingival barrier continues to be performed. If we take into account that, in the at-home bleaching technique, no barrier is indicated, it seems that the use of a gingival barrier fails to make much sense when bleaching gel in low concentration is used for in-office bleaching.
This double-blind, split-mouth, randomized clinical trial evaluated the gingival irritation (GI) of in-office bleaching using 6% hydrogen peroxide (HP) with and without a gingival barrier in adolescents, as well as color change and the impact of oral condition on quality of life.
Overall, 60 participants were randomized into which side would or would not receive the gingival barrier. In-office bleaching was performed for 50 minutes with 6% HP in three sessions. The absolute risk and intensity of GI were assessed with a visual analogue scale. Color change was assessed using a digital spectrophotometer and color guides. The impact of oral condition on quality of life was assessed using the Brazilian version of the Oral Health Impact Profile (α=0.05).
The proportion of patients who presented GI for the "with barrier" group was 31.6% and for the "without barrier" group, 30% (p=1.0). There is an equivalence for the evaluated groups regarding GI intensity (p<0.01). Color change was detected with no statistical differences (p>0.29). There was a significant impact of oral condition on quality of life after bleaching (p<0.001).
The use or not of the gingival barrier for in-office bleaching with 6% HP was equivalent for GI, as well as for bleaching efficacy, with improvement in the impact of oral condition on quality of life.
在低浓度的诊室用漂白凝胶(如 6%HP)中,仍会进行牙龈屏障。如果考虑到在家庭漂白技术中,没有指示使用牙龈屏障,那么当使用低浓度的漂白凝胶进行诊室漂白时,使用牙龈屏障似乎没有多大意义。
本双盲、劈裂口腔、随机临床试验评估了使用 6%过氧化氢(HP)进行诊室漂白时的牙龈刺激(GI),并比较了在青少年中使用和不使用牙龈屏障的情况,以及颜色变化和口腔状况对生活质量的影响。
共有 60 名参与者被随机分为接受或不接受牙龈屏障的一侧。诊室漂白分三次进行,每次 50 分钟,使用 6%HP。GI 的绝对风险和强度用视觉模拟量表评估。颜色变化用数字分光光度计和颜色指南评估。口腔状况对生活质量的影响用巴西版口腔健康影响量表(α=0.05)评估。
“有屏障”组出现 GI 的患者比例为 31.6%,“无屏障”组为 30%(p=1.0)。两组的 GI 强度具有等效性(p<0.01)。颜色变化无统计学差异(p>0.29)。漂白后,口腔状况对生活质量有显著影响(p<0.001)。
在使用 6%HP 进行诊室漂白时,使用或不使用牙龈屏障对 GI 以及漂白效果等效,同时改善了口腔状况对生活质量的影响。