Ghafir Mamnoon, Mehmood Nida, Bharati Leeza, Bhukal Shreya, Sethi Ritika, Chaudhary Aanchal, Gupta Seema
Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Institute of Dental Sciences, Bareilly, IND.
Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Kothiwal Dental College and Research Centre, Moradabad, IND.
Cureus. 2025 May 1;17(5):e83322. doi: 10.7759/cureus.83322. eCollection 2025 May.
Bleaching is a widely practiced aesthetic dental treatment, but high-concentration peroxide-based agents may negatively impact enamel integrity. This in vitro study aimed to compare enamel surface roughness after exposure to 35% hydrogen peroxide and 37% carbamide peroxide using both scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and contact profilometry. This study further explored the correlation between these two methods for evaluating surface topographical changes.
Fifty enamel specimens were prepared from 30 extracted human premolars and randomly divided into three groups: Group 1 (control, n = 10), Group 2 (35% hydrogen peroxide, n = 20), and Group 3 (37% carbamide peroxide, n = 20). Bleaching was performed for 15 minutes per day for seven days. Surface roughness was assessed at baseline and after bleaching using a contact profilometer (Mitutoyo Surftest SJ-410, Mitutoyo Corporation, Kanagawa, Japan) and SEM (JEOL JSM-6510LV, JEOL Ltd., Tokyo, Japan). For profilometric analysis, the mean surface roughness (Ra) was calculated from three standardized points per specimen. SEM images at 1000× magnification were used to analyse three-dimensional topographic changes. Data were analysed using a mixed model analysis of variance (ANOVA), post-hoc Dunn-Bonferroni test, and Spearman correlation analysis, with significance set at p < 0.05.
Both bleaching agents caused a significant increase in enamel surface roughness compared with the control group (p < 0.001). SEM detected more microstructural alterations than profilometry, as indicated by the strong method effect (effect size = 0.87, p = 0.001). Post-hoc comparisons showed that both bleaching agents significantly differed from the control, whereas no significant difference was found between them. Correlation analysis revealed high consistency between the SEM and profilometer measurements, particularly in the control and hydrogen peroxide groups.
Exposure to both 35% hydrogen peroxide and 37% carbamide peroxide significantly increased enamel surface roughness with comparable etching effects. SEM was found to be more sensitive than profilometry for detecting microstructural changes.
牙齿美白是一种广泛应用的口腔美容治疗方法,但高浓度的过氧化物类制剂可能会对牙釉质完整性产生负面影响。这项体外研究旨在通过扫描电子显微镜(SEM)和接触式轮廓仪比较暴露于35%过氧化氢和37%过氧化脲后的牙釉质表面粗糙度。本研究进一步探讨了这两种评估表面形貌变化方法之间的相关性。
从30颗拔除的人类前磨牙制备50个牙釉质标本,并随机分为三组:第1组(对照组,n = 10)、第2组(35%过氧化氢,n = 20)和第3组(37%过氧化脲,n = 20)。每天进行15分钟的美白处理,持续7天。在基线和美白处理后,使用接触式轮廓仪(Mitutoyo Surftest SJ - 410,三丰公司,日本神奈川)和SEM(JEOL JSM - 6510LV,JEOL有限公司,日本东京)评估表面粗糙度。对于轮廓分析,从每个标本的三个标准化点计算平均表面粗糙度(Ra)。使用1000倍放大倍数的SEM图像分析三维形貌变化。数据采用混合模型方差分析(ANOVA)、事后邓恩 - 邦费罗尼检验和斯皮尔曼相关性分析进行分析,显著性设定为p < 0.05。
与对照组相比,两种美白剂均导致牙釉质表面粗糙度显著增加(p < 0.001)。如强烈的方法效应所示(效应大小 = 0.87,p = 0.001),SEM检测到的微观结构改变比轮廓仪更多。事后比较表明,两种美白剂与对照组均有显著差异,而它们之间未发现显著差异。相关性分析显示,SEM和轮廓仪测量之间具有高度一致性,特别是在对照组和过氧化氢组中。
暴露于35%过氧化氢和37%过氧化脲均显著增加牙釉质表面粗糙度,蚀刻效果相当。发现SEM在检测微观结构变化方面比轮廓仪更敏感。