ArticleBMC oral health2025
Comparative evaluation of different bleaching agents on the color stability, hardness and surface roughness of indirect esthetic restorative materials with different manufacturing methods.
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07493941 (Effect of Bleaching Regimen With Different Activation Modes on Color Stability, Surface Roughness, Tooth Sensitivity and Patient Satisfaction), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
Effect of Bleaching Regimen With Different Activation Modes on Color Stability, Surface Roughness, Tooth Sensitivity and Patient Satisfaction
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo evaluate the effect of various bleaching agents of on color, surface roughness and microhardness of indirect restorative materials with different manufacturing methods.
methodsA total of 150 disc-shaped specimens (Ø=8 mm, h = 1.5 mm) were fabricated from 3D-printed resin (Saremco print-CROWNTEC, SAREMCO Dental, Switzerland), milled resin (Lava Ultimate; 3 M ESPE, USA), and conventional resin (Enamel Plus HRi; Micerium, Italy) following the manufacturers' instructions (N = 50/group). Color measurements were performed using a spectrophotometer (VITA Easyshade-V; VITA Zahnfabrik, Germany) under standardized lighting conditions. Microhardness was measured using a Micro Vickers Hardness Tester (HMV-G, Shimadzu, Japan) at a load of 300-gf for 15 s. Surface roughness was measured with a contact profilometer (Perthometer M1, Mahr, Germany). After initial color, microhardness, and surface roughness measurements each group was divided into 5 subgroups: control group, 16% carbamide peroxide (Whiteness Perfect), 35% hydrogen peroxide (Whiteness HP Blue), 16% carbamide peroxide (Opalescence PF), and 40% hydrogen peroxide (Opalescence Boost). After bleaching procedure final color, microhardness and surface roughness of specimens were measured. Color change values were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis tests followed by Mann-Whitney U tests, while microhardness and surface roughness values were analyzed using two-way ANOVA with Tukey-HSD post-hoc tests (p < 0.05).
resultsSignificant differences in ΔE
conclusionsThe type of indirect restorative material and bleaching agent had an impact on color and surface roughness, while bleaching agents did not influence microhardness. This highlights the importance of material selection in clinical practice.
Indexed as
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.