ArticleBMC oral health2026
Effect of in-office bleaching on surface roughness of additively versus subtractively manufactured tooth-colored materials used for fixed definitive prostheses.
Article in BMC oral health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn-office dental bleaching is recognized as a conservative and effective approach for achieving tooth whitening. Although previous studies have investigated additively manufactured composite resins, there is limited knowledge in terms of the impact of in-office bleaching on the surface roughness of these materials. The goal of this study was to determine the impact of in-office bleaching on the surface roughness of tooth-colored materials used for definitive fixed prostheses, which were fabricated via two different techniques: subtractive and additive manufacturing.
methodsTwo additively manufactured resins, Varseosmile crown plus (VS) and Crowntec (CT), and one subtractively manufactured polymer-infiltrated ceramic, Vita enamic (EN), were applied to fabricate rectangular-shaped specimens (14 × 12 × 1 mm) (n = 20). The surface roughness of each sample was measured via a noncontact profilometer before the in-office bleaching material (control) was processed. The bleaching agent (BMS White, Pisa, Italy) was then applied in three consecutive sessions of 15 min each (total 45 min), after which surface roughness was measured again via the same profilometer. For the purpose of statistical evaluation, one-way ANOVA and paired-samples t tests were performed. A p value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant, whereas a p-value < 0.001 was considered highly statistically significant.
resultsThe mean surface roughness [µm] prior to exposure to the bleaching material did not differ markedly among the groups. Following application of the bleaching agent, both the VS and CT groups demonstrated a notable increase in surface roughness (P < 0.001). In contrast, the EN group demonstrated a nonsignificant change in surface roughness.
conclusionsThe tested additively manufactured resins had greater surface roughness than did the subtractively manufactured polymer-infiltrated ceramic, which was more resistant to roughening after all the in-office bleaching procedures were completed.
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.