ReviewThe Saudi dental journal2026
In-office tooth bleaching protocols: an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses on whitening efficacy and tooth sensitivity.
Review in The Saudi dental journal, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In-office tooth bleaching is widely used for rapid aesthetic improvement, but the clinical value of protocol variations-such as peroxide concentration, light activation, gel application methods, and desensitizing strategies-remains uncertain. This umbrella review synthesized systematic reviews and meta-analyses evaluating the effects of in-office bleaching protocols on whitening efficacy and tooth sensitivity. PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched from database inception to January 2026. Eligible studies were systematic reviews or meta-analyses assessing in-office bleaching of vital permanent teeth in adults. Methodological quality was assessed using AMSTAR-2, and certainty of evidence for major clinical questions was evaluated using GRADE. Due to protocol heterogeneity, findings were synthesized narratively with emphasis on results from higher-quality reviews. Twenty-four systematic reviews were included. Moderate-certainty evidence indicated that low-to-medium hydrogen peroxide concentrations (≈25-35%) produce whitening outcomes comparable to higher concentrations while reducing tooth sensitivity. Light activation (LED, halogen, or laser) generally did not improve whitening efficacy and may increase sensitivity. A recent meta-analysis suggested that violet-light activation combined with carbamide peroxide may enhance whitening without increasing sensitivity; however, supporting evidence remains limited. Single gel application protocols showed similar whitening outcomes to repeated gel renewals, with a tendency toward lower sensitivity. Desensitizing agents, particularly potassium nitrate and sodium fluoride, consistently reduced sensitivity without affecting whitening efficacy. Moderate peroxide concentrations, simplified gel application strategies, and desensitizing approaches may optimize in-office bleaching while minimizing sensitivity. Evidence supporting light activation and photobiomodulation remains limited, highlighting the need for well-designed randomized clinical trials.
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.