ArticleBDJ open2024
Evaluating the efficiency of two different over-the-counter tooth whitening systems: a randomised controlled clinical trial.
Article in BDJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparative efficacy of external dental bleaching gels: a systematic review of whitening performance and longevity.Clinical oral investigations · 2025Pooled it
- Clinical myths in dental bleaching: an evidence-based structured narrative review.Brazilian oral research · 2026Review
- Tooth-Whitening Agents and Polymer-Based Carriers: Efficacy, Safety, and Clinical Perspectives.Polymers · 2025Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare whitening efficiency and tooth sensitivity (TS) of two different over the counter (OTC) whitening systems in comparison to conventional at-home bleaching using 20% carbamide peroxide. MATERIALS AND
methodsA randomised controlled clinical trial was conducted with three parallel groups (n = 13): (A) at-home whitening using 20% carbamide peroxide (20% CP), (B) OTC ready-to-use gel trays and (C) OTC-paint on gel. Clinical colour change values (ΔE) were measured using spectrophotometry at T0: baseline, T1: 7-day and T2: 14-day from whitening start, T3: 2 weeks and T4: 6 months after whitening end. TS was recorded using a visual analogue scale (VAS). ΔE and TS values were statistically analysed. The level of significance for all tests was 5%.
resultsSignificant differences in ∆E values were recorded between the experimental groups. ∆E values were significantly higher in the 20% CP conventional at-home whitening group. TS measurements were significantly higher in the 20% CP whitening group (p < 0.05).
conclusionConventional at-home whitening revealed significantly improved colour change when compared to the OTC-paint on gel and OTC ready-to-use gel tray whitening systems. There was a significant colour relapse in OTC systems. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The use of tested OTC systems is not recommended as they are not effective in a clear and prolonged improved shade change. Conventional at-home whitening using 20% CP showed higher whitening efficiency and colour stability. This trial was registered with a International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN23096480), Registration date: 12/04/2023.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.