Bersezio Cristian, Ledezma Paulina, Torres Valentina, Villagra Javiera, Aravena Daniela, Kuga Milton, Martín Javier, Fernandez Eduardo
Restorative Dentistry Departament, Dental School, University of Chile, Santiago, 8380544, Chile.
Conservative Dentistry Departament, Dental School, University of Chile, Santiago, 8380544, Chile.
Clin Oral Investig. 2024 Dec 20;29(1):24. doi: 10.1007/s00784-024-06048-9.
This study aimed to compare the efficacy of two non vital whitening techniques, In-office and Walking Bleach, using 35% hydrogen peroxide. The primary research question was to determine which technique achieves greater tooth color improvement.
Fifty non-vital anterior teeth with discoloration were randomly assigned to either the In-office (n = 25) or Walking Bleach (n = 25) groups. Tooth color was measured using a Vita EasyShade V spectrophotometer and visual scales (Vita Classical and Bleachguide) before treatment, after each bleaching session, and at a one-month follow-up. ΔE00, Whiteness Index (WID), and Shade Guide Unit (ΔSGU) values were calculated. Statistical analysis was performed using the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests.
Both techniques improved tooth color, with final ΔE00 values of 10.08 for In-office and 8.12 for Walking Bleach. WID values were significantly higher in the In-office group, indicating greater whitening efficacy. Significant differences favoring the In-office method were seen after the first bleaching (p = 0.0337), and one-month follow-up (p = 0.0327).
Both the In-office and Walking Bleach techniques effectively improve the color of non-vital teeth, with the In-office method showing slight advantages at certain times. Clinicians can choose either technique based on safety, patient needs, and clinical context to achieve optimal results.
This study provides evidence that both bleaching techniques are viable options for non-vital teeth whitening. The findings help clinicians choose the most appropriate technique based on biological safety and patient needs and desired outcomes, with the In-office technique being preferable for faster results.
本研究旨在比较两种使用35%过氧化氢的非活髓牙齿美白技术——诊室美白和家庭漂白术的疗效。主要研究问题是确定哪种技术能使牙齿颜色改善更显著。
50颗变色的非活髓前牙被随机分为诊室美白组（n = 25）和家庭漂白术组（n = 25）。在治疗前、每次漂白疗程后以及1个月随访时，使用Vita EasyShade V分光光度计和视觉比色板（Vita经典比色板和漂白比色指南）测量牙齿颜色。计算ΔE00、白度指数（WID）和比色板单位（ΔSGU）值。使用Kruskal-Wallis检验和Mann-Whitney检验进行统计分析。
两种技术均改善了牙齿颜色，诊室美白最终的ΔE00值为10.08，家庭漂白术为8.12。诊室美白组的WID值显著更高，表明美白效果更佳。在第一次漂白后（p = 0.0337）和1个月随访时（p = 0.0327），观察到有利于诊室美白方法的显著差异。
诊室美白和家庭漂白术均能有效改善非活髓牙齿的颜色，诊室美白方法在某些时候显示出轻微优势。临床医生可根据安全性、患者需求和临床情况选择任一技术以达到最佳效果。
本研究提供了证据表明两种漂白技术都是非活髓牙齿美白的可行选择。研究结果有助于临床医生根据生物安全性、患者需求和期望结果选择最合适的技术，诊室美白技术因效果更快而更可取。
