Aidar K M S, Cintra L T A, Ferreira M C B, Fagundes T C, Esteves L M B, Goto J, Catelan A, Briso A L F
Department of Preventive and Restorative Dentistry, São Paulo State University (UNESP), School of Dentistry Araçatuba, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
J Esthet Restor Dent. 2025 Jun;37(6):1504-1514. doi: 10.1111/jerd.13412. Epub 2025 Jan 17.
To compare the color alteration, surface roughness and microhardness and cross-sectional microhardness of bovine enamel treated with at-home whitening strips and gels.
Sixty-six pigmented specimens (n = 11) were allocated to six groups: C-cotton wool moistened with distilled water for 1 h; SDS-sodium dithionite strip, for 1 h; HPS-6.5% hydrogen peroxide strip, for 1 h; CPS-20% carbamide peroxide strip, for 1 h; HPG-7.5% hydrogen peroxide gel, for 1 h; CPG-10% carbamide peroxide gel, for 4 h. The treatments lasted 10 days, calculating the ∆E, ∆E , and ∆W at baseline, 5 and 10 days, and 14 days after completion. Additional 66 polished discs (n = 11) were used to analyze the surface roughness and microhardness of enamel before and after bleaching, cross-sectional microhardness and integrated mineral loss (ΔZ; %Vol × μm). Data were subjected to statistical analysis by two-way Anova RM and Tukey post-test (α = 0.05).
In ∆E and ∆W analysis, greater values were obtained in CPG (p < 0.001), followed by HPG and HPS (p = 0.271). SDS and CPS (p < 0.001) exceeded only C (p < 0.001). In ∆E , at completion of treatments, the results were similar; however, HPG = HPS = CPS (p = 0.237). There was an increase in roughness and decrease in surface microhardness in all bleaching groups (p < 0.005). Concerning the cross-sectional microhardness, the treatments were equal to C at 150 μm, the last depth analyzed. For ΔZ, the values of SDS, CPS, HPG, and CPG groups showed similar mineral loss (p > 0.001), and the lowest value was exhibited in the Control group, followed by HPS group (p < 0.001).
Although the strips were aesthetically effective, the CPG and HPG groups presented highest values in the ∆E and ∆W analysis. However, all treatments influenced the enamel surface, increasing roughness and decreasing surface and transverse microhardness.
The whitening gels promoted greater chromatic changes, but all treatments affected the enamel surface, increasing roughness and decreasing surface and transverse microhardness.
比较家用美白牙贴和美白凝胶处理后牛牙釉质的颜色变化、表面粗糙度、显微硬度及横断面显微硬度。
将66个色素沉着的标本(n = 11)分为六组:C组 - 用蒸馏水浸湿的棉絮处理1小时;SDS组 - 连二亚硫酸钠牙贴,处理1小时;HPS组 - 6.5%过氧化氢牙贴,处理1小时;CPS组 - 20%过氧化脲牙贴,处理1小时;HPG组 - 7.5%过氧化氢凝胶,处理1小时;CPG组 - 10%过氧化脲凝胶,处理4小时。处理持续10天,在基线、第5天、第10天以及完成后第14天计算ΔE、ΔE₀和ΔW。另外使用66个抛光圆盘(n = 11)分析漂白前后牙釉质的表面粗糙度和显微硬度、横断面显微硬度以及累积矿物质流失(ΔZ;%Vol×μm)。数据采用双向重复测量方差分析和Tukey事后检验进行统计分析(α = 0.05)。
在ΔE和ΔW分析中,CPG组的值更高(p < 0.001),其次是HPG组和HPS组(p = 0.271)。SDS组和CPS组(p < 0.001)仅超过C组(p < 0.001)。在处理结束时的ΔE₀分析中,结果相似;然而,HPG = HPS = CPS组(p = 0.237)。所有漂白组的粗糙度均增加,表面显微硬度均降低(p < 0.005)。关于横断面显微硬度,在分析的最后深度150μm处,各处理组与C组相当。对于ΔZ,SDS组、CPS组、HPG组和CPG组的矿物质流失值相似(p > 0.001),对照组的值最低,其次是HPS组(p < 0.001)。
尽管牙贴在美观上有效,但CPG组和HPG组在ΔE和ΔW分析中呈现出最高值。然而,所有处理均影响牙釉质表面,增加粗糙度并降低表面和横向显微硬度。
美白凝胶促进了更大的颜色变化,但所有处理均影响牙釉质表面,增加粗糙度并降低表面和横向显微硬度。