ArticleLasers in medical science2026
Comparison of tooth surface roughness after bleaching with conventional and different light-activated methods.
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. 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
Abstract
Purpose the increasing demand for aesthetic dental treatments has made in-office tooth bleaching a popular and minimally invasive procedure. However, bleaching may alter enamel surface roughness, potentially increasing plaque retention and discoloration. Laser activation has been proposed as a safer alternative. This study compared the effects of conventional bleaching, LED activation, and different laser systems (Diode, KTP, Nd-YAG, and CO₂) on enamel surface roughness. Methods sixty freshly extracted human anterior teeth were selected. Samples were randomly assigned to conventional bleaching (without light activation), LED bleaching, and laser bleaching groups, including KTP, Diode, Nd-YAG, and CO2 lasers (n = 10). Pre-treatment surface roughness evaluation was done for all samples. Samples were treated with Opalescence Xtra Boost (Ultradent, USA) for the control group and JW Power Bleaching Gel (Heydent GmbH, Germany) for other groups. Surface roughness was evaluated after bleaching in all groups. Kruskal-Wallis test and Two-Way ANOVA were done to statistically analyze study data, using GraphPad Prism v9, and P-values lower than 0.05 were considered significant. Results LED caused significantly greater surface roughness change compared to bleaching without light (P = 0.0236). Laser-activated groups did not differ significantly from the conventional group or from each other. In the middle third, LED activation resulted in significantly higher roughness compared with the KTP laser (P = 0.029). Conclusion LED activation resulted in greater roughness changes, particularly in the middle third of enamel, while laser activation generally preserved enamel surface integrity, compared to the conventional group.
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.