Buzatu Berivan Laura Rebeca, Galuscan Atena, Dumitrescu Ramona, Buzatu Roxana, Luca Magda Mihaela, Balean Octavia, Vlase Gabriela, Vlase Titus, Anghel Iasmina-Mădălina, Opris Carmen, Todor Bianca Ioana, Dumitrache Mihaela Adina, Jumanca Daniela
Translational and Experimental Clinical Research Centre in Oral Health, Department of Preventive, Community Dentistry and Oral Health, "Victor Babes" University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 300040 Timisoara, Romania.
Clinic of Preventive, Community Dentistry and Oral Health, "Victor Babes" University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Eftimie Murgu Sq. no 2, 300041 Timisoara, Romania.
Dent J (Basel). 2025 Aug 6;13(8):357. doi: 10.3390/dj13080357.
: In-office bleaching commonly employs high concentrations of hydrogen peroxide (HP) or carbamide peroxide (CP), which may compromise enamel integrity. This in vitro paired-design study aimed to compare the chemical and mechanical effects of three commercial bleaching agents-Opalescence Boost (40% HP), Opalescence Quick (45% CP), and BlancOne Ultra+ (35% HP)-on human enamel. The null hypothesis assumed no significant differences between the control and treated samples. Given the ongoing debate over pH, active ingredients, and enamel impact, comparing whitening systems remains clinically important. : Forty-two extracted teeth were assigned to three experimental groups ( = 14) with matched controls. Each underwent a single bleaching session per manufacturer protocol: Opalescence Boost (≤60 min), Opalescence Quick (15-30 min), and BlancOne Ultra+ (three light-activated cycles of 8-10 min). Enamel chemical changes were analyzed by Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy (phosphate and carbonate bands), and surface hardness by Vickers microhardness testing. Paired -tests (α = 0.05) assessed statistical significance. : FTIR analysis revealed alterations in phosphate and carbonate bands for all agents, most notably for Opalescence Boost and BlancOne Ultra+. Microhardness testing showed significant reductions in enamel hardness for Opalescence Boost (control: 37.21 ± 1.74 Hv; treated: 34.63 ± 1.70 Hv; = 0.00) and Opalescence Quick (control: 45.82 ± 1.71 Hv; treated: 39.34 ± 1.94 Hv; < 0.0001), whereas BlancOne Ultra+ showed no significant difference (control: 51.64 ± 1.59 HV; treated: 51.60 ± 2.34 Hv; = 0.95). : HP-based agents, particularly at higher concentrations, caused greater enamel alterations than CP-based products. While clinically relevant, the results should be interpreted cautiously due to in vitro limitations and natural enamel variability.
诊室漂白通常使用高浓度的过氧化氢（HP）或过氧化脲（CP），这可能会损害牙釉质的完整性。这项体外配对设计研究旨在比较三种商用漂白剂——皓齿美白加速版（40% HP）、皓齿美白快速版（45% CP）和博恩美白超强+（35% HP）——对人牙釉质的化学和机械作用。无效假设为对照组和处理组样本之间无显著差异。鉴于目前关于pH值、活性成分和牙釉质影响的争论，比较美白系统在临床上仍然很重要。
42颗拔除的牙齿被分为三个实验组（每组14颗），并设置了匹配的对照组。每组牙齿均按照各制造商的方案进行一次漂白疗程：皓齿美白加速版（≤60分钟）、皓齿美白快速版（15 - 30分钟）和博恩美白超强+（三个8 - 10分钟的光激活周期）。通过傅里叶变换红外（FTIR）光谱法（磷酸盐和碳酸盐谱带）分析牙釉质的化学变化，通过维氏显微硬度测试分析表面硬度。配对t检验（α = 0.05）评估统计学显著性。
FTIR分析显示，所有试剂处理后磷酸盐和碳酸盐谱带均有变化，最明显的是皓齿美白加速版和博恩美白超强+。显微硬度测试表明，皓齿美白加速版处理后牙釉质硬度显著降低（对照组：37.21 ± 1.74 Hv；处理组：34.63 ± 1.70 Hv；P = 0.00），皓齿美白快速版处理后牙釉质硬度也显著降低（对照组：45.82 ± 1.71 Hv；处理组：39.34 ± 1.94 Hv；P < 0.0001），而博恩美白超强+处理后无显著差异（对照组：51.64 ± 1.59 HV；处理组：51.60 ± 2.34 Hv；P = 0.95）。
基于HP的试剂，尤其是高浓度时，比基于CP的产品对牙釉质造成的改变更大。虽然这些结果具有临床相关性，但由于体外实验的局限性和天然牙釉质的变异性，应谨慎解读。
