RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Dental bleaching in traditional concentrations generates greater sensitivity. In this respect, new systems of lower concentration of hydrogen peroxide for tooth bleaching appeared, with color stability unknown over time. The aim of this study was to compare the change and stability of color with low-concentration (6%) hydrogen peroxide gel in an in-office bleaching setting relative to conventional 37.5% gel, including their effects on psychosocial and esthetic self-perception, after 1 year. METHODS: Patients (n = 25) were assessed at 12 months post bleaching treatment (whitening with 6% chemo-activated alkaline formula gel versus 37.5% traditional concentration gel). Color changes were measured objectively using total variation in color (ΔE), and subjectively using Vita Classical and Vita Bleached scale (ΔSGU) by calibrated evaluators (Kappa = 0.85). The Psychosocial Impact of Dental Aesthetics Questionnaire (PIDAQ) and Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14) aesthetic questionnaires were used to measure the self-perception and the psychosocial impact of the bleaching protocols. RESULTS: The effect (ΔE) of 37.5% HP (8.37 ± 2.73) was significantly better than that of 6% HP (5.27 ± 2.53) in terms of color rebound after 1 year of follow-up. There were significant differences in psychosocial impact and esthetic self-perception measurements prior to bleaching versus one-year post-whitening time points; positive effects were maintained. CONCLUSIONS: Low concentration (6%) achieved effective bleaching with good stability after 1 year, accompanied by a positive psychosocial impact and enhanced self-perception at follow-up. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03217994 (before enrollment of the first participant). Data register: July 14, 2017.
Asunto(s)
Sensibilidad de la Dentina , Blanqueadores Dentales , Blanqueamiento de Dientes , Color , Estética Dental , Estudios de Seguimiento , Geles , Humanos , Peróxido de Hidrógeno , Calidad de Vida , Autoimagen , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
Replacement of dental restorations has been the traditional treatment for restorations that are defective. In this five-year randomized clinical trial, restorations with localized marginal defects were treated with sealants. Thirty-two patients (mean age, 26.8 years) with 126 Class I and Class II restorations with defective margins (amalgam n=69 and resin-based composite n=57) were recruited. Treatment was seal with pit and fissure sealant on localized marginal defects (group A: n=43) and was compared with total restoration replacement (group B: n=40) and untreated restorations (group C: n=43) as negative and positive controls. Restorations were assessed by two examiners using the modified US Public Health Service criteria, observing five clinical parameters: marginal adaptation, roughness, marginal stain, teeth sensitivity, and secondary caries at baseline and at five years after treatment. At the five-year recall examination, 23 patients with 90 restorations (71.4% recall rate) were examined. A significant improvement was observed in the marginal adaptation of the restorations in group A compared with group B. None of the treated group showed trends to downgrade in any parameter. Tooth sensitivity and secondary caries showed a low frequency in all groups. No significant difference in marginal adaptation of the restorations was found between amalgam and resin-based composite restorations (p=0.191). This study demonstrated that marginal sealing of restorations is a minimally invasive treatment that may be used instead of the replacement of restorations with localized marginal defects.