ArticleLasers in medical science2026
Effects of phthalimidoperoxycaproic acid (PAP+) associated or not with LED irradiation as a bleaching agent: an in vitro study.
Article in Lasers in medical science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Type I Aggregation-Induced Emission Photosensitizer Enables Peroxide-Free Photodynamic Tooth Whitening While Preserving Enamel Integrity.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- Clinical myths in dental bleaching: an evidence-based structured narrative review.Brazilian oral research · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of phthalimidoperoxycaproic acid (PAP+) as a bleaching agent, combined or not with blue or violet LEDs. MATERIALS AND
methods108 sound bovine enamel/dentin blocks stained with black tea were assigned to nine groups (n = 12): Control (no treatment - NC); MMO (Bright max violet LED, MMOptics); VIO (VIO405, HiSmile); PAP (PAP+ - VIO405 whitening kit, HiSmile); PAP/MMO; PAP/VIO; HP10 (10% Hydrogen Peroxide - White Class 10%, FGM); HP10/MMO; HP10/VIO. LED irradiation and light potency were analyzed, and the pH of the gels was assessed before and after treatment. Afterwards, dental blocks underwent treatment for 7 days according to each protocol. Samples were assessed for color change (ΔE
resultsVIO delivered approximately 10% of MMO irradiance. Irradiation reduced gel pH, but values remained above 5.8. PAP did not differ from controls, regardless of LED use (p > 0.05), whereas HP10 showed greater bleaching efficacy, especially when combined with MMO (p < 0.05). No morphological enamel damage was observed, and microhardness increased over time in all groups (p < 0.05).
conclusionVIO exhibited lower power and stability than MMO, but arguably, both enhanced the efficacy of HP10. Under the tested protocol, PAP+ failed to induce significant bleaching, regardless of association to LED irradiation, while HP10 effectively induced bleaching independently of LED association. Importantly, none of the tested treatments resulted in microhardness loss or morphological damage to the enamel surface. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: PAP + was not able to promote significant bleaching in the adopted protocol, showing mostly similarities to the NC group, and did not improve the LED devices efficacy. PH10 consistently showed significant bleaching, benefiting from the association with MMO. MMO alone was able to produce light bleaching effects.
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.