RESUMEN
A clinical trial was conducted with 25 subjects to evaluate the effects and safety of Zoom! Take-Home whitening gel, a 6% hydrogen peroxide gel for vital tooth bleaching. Tooth bleaching was accomplished using a tray system overnight for 6 nights. Over the 6 nights, a significant change (from darker to lighter) was seen in tooth shades as demonstrated by 3 assessment methods: VITA Shade Value Oriented Guide, Trubyte Bioform Color Ordered Shade Guide scoring system, and the Chroma Meter CR-321 assessments. VITA Shade scores showed a mean change of -6.49 shades (P = .0001) from baseline to day 4 and a -7.72 shades (P = .0001) from baseline to day 7. The Trubyte scores showed a mean change of -9.31 shades (P = .0001) from baseline to day 4 and a -10.77 shades (P = .0001) from baseline to day 7. The Chroma Meter was used to measure tooth color. Analysis of Chroma Meter data showed a significant change in color (delta E), 13.82 mean score change (P = .0001) from baseline to day 4 and a 7.25 mean score change (P = .0001) from baseline to day 7. At day 4 minor tooth sensitivity was reported, and all tooth sensitivity resolved within a few days after treatment.
Asunto(s)
Dispositivos para el Autocuidado Bucal , Blanqueamiento de Dientes/métodos , Adulto , Color/normas , Sensibilidad de la Dentina/etiología , Estudios de Evaluación como Asunto , Femenino , Geles , Humanos , Peróxido de Hidrógeno/administración & dosificación , Masculino , Evaluación de Resultado en la Atención de Salud/métodos , Oxidantes/administración & dosificación , Satisfacción del Paciente , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , Blanqueamiento de Dientes/efectos adversos , Blanqueamiento de Dientes/instrumentaciónRESUMEN
The purpose of the study was to compare the efficacy of four mouthrinses in clinical outcomes of changes in oral malodor measurements in a 4-week, randomized, double-blind, longitudinal clinical trial in adults. The four rinses were coded as Products 1, 2, 3, and 4 so that neither the examiners nor subjects had the knowledge of treatment. Of the four mouthrinses, two were commercially available mouthrinses with essential oils (EO) or chlorine dioxide plus zinc (CD/Zn) as active ingredients (Products 1 and 4), one mouthrinse was a formulation containing cetylpyridinium chloride (Product 2), and one was a placebo (Product 3). A total of 99 subjects who met the study criteria were assigned randomly to one of the four groups. At three separate visits (0, 2, and 4 weeks), subjects received an examination of the oral soft tissues and were assessed for baseline oral malodor by two organoleptic judges and a laboratory instrument that measures oral malodor. Subjects were instructed to use the assigned rinse, and the measurements were performed again after 2 and 4 hours. Throughout the 4-week study period, each subject was asked to use the assigned rinse twice daily per the manufacturer's recommended directions. The results showed that the four mouthrinses reduced oral malodor within 4 hours after a single usage, with Product 2 being the most effective and the placebo being the least effective. Daily use of EO, CD/Zn, and placebo rinses for up to 4 weeks did not reduce oral malodor from week 0 baseline values, and the effects on oral malodor were comparable among these three mouthrinses. Product 2 was the only mouthrinse that reduced oral malodor from baseline values after 2 and 4 weeks of daily use.
Asunto(s)
Antiinfecciosos Locales/uso terapéutico , Halitosis/prevención & control , Antisépticos Bucales/uso terapéutico , Adulto , Anciano , Cetilpiridinio/uso terapéutico , Compuestos de Cloro/uso terapéutico , Método Doble Ciego , Femenino , Humanos , Estudios Longitudinales , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Odorantes/análisis , Aceites Volátiles/uso terapéutico , Óxidos/uso terapéutico , Placebos , Compuestos de Azufre/análisis , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
The objective of this clinical study was to compare the whitening/bleaching efficacy of two marketed in-office whitening systems: Discus Dental Zoom! Chairside System (25% hydrogen peroxide whitening gel) and Opalescence Xtra Boost Kit (38% hydrogen peroxide whitening gel), using the Vita Shade Guide and chromameter measurements. The study was an examiner-blind, parallel group, randomized and controlled clinical trial conducted in a dental setting. All subjects signed a study consent form prior to admission and were given Crest Regular Toothpaste and an Oral-B 40 straight-handle toothbrush to use during the study. Subjects received a supragingival prophylaxis followed by a screening eligibility Vita Shade assessment from which 22 subjects were selected. At baseline, all six maxillary anterior teeth were assessed with the Vita Shade Guide. Chromameter measurements were taken on either the right maxillary central or left maxillary central (tooth No. 8 or tooth No. 9). Subjects were assigned to one of two treatment groups, and had three applications of their assigned product. Following completion of the treatment phase, and on post-treatment Days 2 and 7, a visual examination of the condition of the oral soft tissues, together with a Vita Shade assessment on maxillary anterior teeth, a chromameter reading and a questionnaire regarding tooth sensitivity were completed. At the termination of the study, the statistical analysis of the Vita Shade scores indicated that both products significantly (p < 0.0001) lightened the color of the teeth. The average improvement was between 6 and 9 shade changes. Additionally, the Zoom! Chairside System was significantly better than the Opalescense Xtra Boost Kit at all time points: post-treatment (p < 0.0001); Day 2 (p < 0.004); Day 7 (p < 0.003). This difference was between 1 and 2 shade changes. The chromameter readings showed a significant difference in the overall color change (delta E) to a lighter color for both the Zoom! Chairside System and the Opalescence Xtra Boost Kit. Using delta E, the Zoom! Chairside System was directionally better than the Opalescense Xtra Boost Kit at Day 2 (p < 0.08), and significantly better at Day 7 (p < 0.025). Analysis of the composite parameters of delta E (L*, a*, b*) showed that no differences could be detected in the a* (redness) parameter. Changes were observed in the L* (brightness) and b* (yellow) parameters which paralleled the delta E differences. There were no significant differences in induced sensitivity between whitening systems at any time point.