ArticleScientific reports2025
Ex vivo comparative study of at home bleaching products on whitening efficacy and enamel integrity.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To compare the efficacy and safety of at-home bleaching products on dental enamel using an ex vivo bovine enamel model. The study aimed to evaluate the whitening effectiveness and the structural impact of these treatments on enamel integrity. Four at-home bleaching agents [BlancOne Home Night + (BlancOne; 12% carbamide peroxide/4.2% hydrogen peroxide + nano-hydroxyapatite), Opalescence PF Regular (Opale; 16%/5.7% + potassium and fluoride nitrate), Zoom Nite White (Zoom; 16%/5.7% + amorphous calcium phosphate), and Pola Night (Pola; 16%/5.7% + potassium fluoride)] were tested on bovine enamel samples according to ISO 28,399:2021 standards. Whitening efficacy was measured spectrophotometrically before and 48 h after treatments. Enamel surface changes in topography and mechanical properties were analyzed using Atomic Force Microscopy (AFM) and nanoindentation. The pH values of the agents were monitored throughout the treatment to assess their acidity. All agents effectively whitened enamel, with BlancOne demonstrating greater whitening efficacy than Zoom (ΔOD: 5.7 ± 1.1 vs. 3.7 ± 0.9; p < 0.001) and Pola (ΔOD: 5.6 ± 1.7 vs. 1.8 ± 1.0; p < 0.001). No significant difference was observed between BlancOne and Opale (ΔOD: 5.1 ± 0.9 vs. 4.4 ± 1.9; p > 0.05). AFM and nanoindentation analyses revealed significant differences in the integrity of the enamel surface. BlancOne, Zoom and Pola induced only minimal increases in surface roughness and reductions in hardness, whereas Opale resulted in the most pronounced enamel alterations [Control = 4.75 (× 1000 GPa) ± 1.57; BlancOne = 3.1 ± 1.4; Opale = 0.1 ± 0.03; Zoom = 2.9 ± 1.0; Pola = 3.2 ± 0.9. Control vs BlancOne, Zoom, and Pola: p < 0.05; Control vs Opale: p < 0.001]. The pH analysis indicated that BlancOne and Opalescence had less acidic profiles (pH 6-7) than Zoom and Pola (pH ≈ 5.5). This study demonstrates that although all tested agents effectively achieve whitening, they differ in consistency and impact on enamel integrity. Among the tested agents, the formulation containing 12% carbamide peroxide (equivalent to 4.2% hydrogen peroxide) and nano-hydroxyapatite demonstrated a favorable balance between bleaching efficacy and enamel structure preservation. These findings provide valuable insights for clinicians in selecting whitening protocols that minimize enamel damage while achieving satisfactory cosmetic outcomes.
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.