Trial reportBMC oral health2026
Comparative evaluation of LED- and diode laser-assisted in-office tooth whitening: a pilot randomized clinical study.
Trial report 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesLight-assisted in-office whitening procedures are widely used in clinical practice; however, comparative clinical data remain limited, particularly when evaluated using objective outcome measures. This exploratory pilot randomized clinical trial aimed to generate preliminary comparative data on two commercially available light-assisted in-office tooth whitening protocols used under their respective manufacturers' clinical recommendations. The study also explored immediate color change, tooth sensitivity, and patient-reported satisfaction to inform the design of future adequately powered randomized clinical trials. MATERIALS AND
methodsTwelve healthy adult participants (18-45 years) presenting extrinsic or mixed-type tooth discoloration (baseline shade VITA A3 or darker) were randomly allocated into two parallel groups (n = 6 each). One group received whitening with a 35% hydrogen peroxide gel activated by a diode laser device, while the other group underwent whitening with a 25% hydrogen peroxide gel activated by an LED-based device. Tooth color was measured before and immediately after treatment using a digital spectrophotometer (VITA Easyshade V), and color differences (ΔE) were calculated based on CIE L*a*b* coordinates. Post-treatment tooth sensitivity was recorded using a Visual Analog Scale (VAS), and patient satisfaction was evaluated through a structured questionnaire. Statistical analysis was performed using the Mann-Whitney U test.
resultsBoth light-assisted interventions resulted in clinically perceptible whitening outcomes (ΔE > 3.3). The LED-assisted group showed a slightly higher median ΔE value (9.71 [IQR 7.64-13.47]) compared with the laser-assisted group (10.87 [IQR 8.91-13.46]; however, the difference was not statistically significant ( Mann-Whitney U test, p = 0.818). Tooth sensitivity scores were higher in the LED-assisted group ( median 3.5 [IQR 3-4]) compared to the diode laser-assisted group (median 2.5 [IQR 2-3]), but the difference did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.065). Patient-reported satisfaction was high in both groups.
conclusionsWithin the limitations of this exploratory pilot randomized clinical trial, both light-assisted in-office whitening protocols were associated with clinically perceptible immediate color changes. No statistically significant differences were detected between the investigated protocols; however, the limited sample size precludes definitive comparative conclusions. These findings should be considered preliminary and require confirmation in larger, adequately powered randomized clinical trials with longer follow-up periods.
trial registrationThis study was registered in the ISRCTN clinical trial registry (ISRCTN62124700) on 24.01.2026.
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.