Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38536995›Full record

Trial reportJournal of applied oral science : revista FOB2024

In-office dental bleaching in adolescents using 6% hydrogen peroxide with and without gingival barrier: a randomized double-blind clinical trial.

Taynara de Souza Carneiro, Michael Willian Favoreto, João Pedro Ferreira Rodrigues, Elisama Sutil, Gabrielle Gomes Centenaro, Isabela de Matos de Freitas, Alessandra Reis, Laura Ceballos García, Alessandro Dourado Loguercio

Open access · diamondAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of applied oral science : revista FOB, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
5.6field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Taynara de Souza CarneiroUniversidade Estadual de Ponta Grossa, Departamento de Dentística Restauradora, Ponta Grossa, Brasil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5796-014X
Michael Willian FavoretoUniversidade Estadual de Ponta Grossa, Departamento de Dentística Restauradora, Ponta Grossa, Brasil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0800-7915
João Pedro Ferreira RodriguesUniversidade Estadual de Ponta Grossa, Departamento de Dentística Restauradora, Ponta Grossa, Brasil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0005-8989-9212
Elisama SutilUniversidade Estadual de Ponta Grossa, Departamento de Dentística Restauradora, Ponta Grossa, Brasil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8649-9302
Gabrielle Gomes CentenaroUniversidade Estadual de Ponta Grossa, Departamento de Dentística Restauradora, Ponta Grossa, Brasil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6844-202X
Isabela de Matos de FreitasUniversidade Estadual de Ponta Grossa, Departamento de Dentística Restauradora, Ponta Grossa, Brasil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4093-496X
Alessandra ReisUniversidade Estadual de Ponta Grossa, Departamento de Dentística Restauradora, Ponta Grossa, Brasil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6798-2094
Laura Ceballos GarcíaUniversidad Rey Juan Carlos, Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud, IDIBO, Madrid, España.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6024-9559
Alessandro Dourado LoguercioUniversidade Estadual de Ponta Grossa, Departamento de Dentística Restauradora, Ponta Grossa, Brasil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9880-4856
Universidade Estadual de Ponta Grossa · BRUniversidad Rey Juan Carlos · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAt low concentrations used for in-office bleaching gels, such as 6% HP, gingival barrier continues to be performed. If we take into account that, in the at-home bleaching technique, no barrier is indicated, it seems that the use of a gingival barrier fails to make much sense when bleaching gel in low concentration is used for in-office bleaching.

objectiveThis double-blind, split-mouth, randomized clinical trial evaluated the gingival irritation (GI) of in-office bleaching using 6% hydrogen peroxide (HP) with and without a gingival barrier in adolescents, as well as color change and the impact of oral condition on quality of life. METHODOLOGY: Overall, 60 participants were randomized into which side would or would not receive the gingival barrier. In-office bleaching was performed for 50 minutes with 6% HP in three sessions. The absolute risk and intensity of GI were assessed with a visual analogue scale. Color change was assessed using a digital spectrophotometer and color guides. The impact of oral condition on quality of life was assessed using the Brazilian version of the Oral Health Impact Profile (α=0.05).

resultsThe proportion of patients who presented GI for the "with barrier" group was 31.6% and for the "without barrier" group, 30% (p=1.0). There is an equivalence for the evaluated groups regarding GI intensity (p<0.01). Color change was detected with no statistical differences (p>0.29). There was a significant impact of oral condition on quality of life after bleaching (p<0.001).

conclusionsThe use or not of the gingival barrier for in-office bleaching with 6% HP was equivalent for GI, as well as for bleaching efficacy, with improvement in the impact of oral condition on quality of life.

Indexed as

Dentin SensitivityTooth BleachingTooth Bleaching AgentsAdolescentGelsHumansHydrogen PeroxideQuality of LifeTreatment OutcomeGelsHydrogen PeroxideTooth Bleaching Agents

Identifiers

PMID38536995
PMCPMC11037928
OpenAlexW4393170157

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.