ArticleBMC oral health2026
Effects of different whitening toothpastes on the color and surface properties of resin composites after staining.
Article in BMC oral health, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis in-vitro study aimed to assess the effects of whitening toothpastes on color and translucency changes and surface roughness of resin composites.
methodsDisk-shaped resin composite samples from each composite (Clearfil Majesty Esthetic, Palfique Estelite Paste, and Charisma Smart) were made and randomly allocated into five groups (n = 10): Crest Pro Health Whitening, Advance White Pro, Sensodyne Extra Whitening, a control group (distilled water), and a positive control group (exposed to only stain). The samples were exposed to a tea solution and brushed for 30 days. Surface roughness and color measurements were performed immediately and at 15 and 30 days. Data were evaluated using three-way ANOVA (α = 0.05).
resultsSignificant differences were determined among the groups for ΔL, Δb, and ΔE00 values in each resin composite (p < 0.05). The positive control group presented considerably higher ΔL values than the other groups (p < 0.05). Color changes presented no significant difference among whitening toothpastes. The color change in all groups was above the clinically acceptable level (∆E00 > 1.8) after 30 days, except for the distilled water. Translucency changes remained below the clinically perceptible threshold (ΔRTP00 < 0.62) in most groups. For samples brushed with whitening toothpastes, Δb had the greatest impact on ΔE00, whereas in the distilled water and positive control groups, ΔL was the primary factor influencing ΔE00 changes. The surface roughness of the resin composites increased significantly over time (p < 0.001). Clearfil Majesty Esthetic showed the highest surface roughness above clinically acceptable limits (Ra > 0.2 μm), regardless of the whitening toothpaste used. Roughness values did not show significant differences among the toothpastes for each resin composite.
conclusionsWhitening toothpaste with blue covarine did not create a different color change. All whitening toothpastes tested increased the surface roughness, regardless of the type of resin composites evaluated. The type of resin composite had a minimal impact on color and translucency changes when exposed to brushing with various whitening toothpastes.
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.