SynthesisBrazilian oral research2026
Comparative efficacy of violet light, bleaching gel, or their combination, in in-office bleaching: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Brazilian oral research, 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.
- 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This systematic review and network meta-analysis aimed to determine whether the use of violet light alone (VIOL) or its combination with bleaching gels (BGVIOL) results in superior bleaching efficacy compared to bleaching gel alone (BG). Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were identified through searches in PubMed, Cochrane Central, LILACS/BBO, SCOPUS, Web of Science, EMBASE, and gray literature sources in March, 2025. Eligible RCTs compared in-office bleaching using BG, or VIOL, or BGVIOL. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to evaluate the risk of bias (RoB 2.0) of the eligible RCTs. A random-effects Bayesian mixed treatment comparison model evaluated color change (ΔE*ab and ΔSGU/final SGU), and risk and intensity of tooth sensitivity (TS). Ranking probabilities were evaluated using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve, and the certainty of evidence was appraised following the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. Out of 4,963 records, 17 RCTs were included, 11 of which had a high RoB. Analysis of ΔE*ab revealed significant mean differences (MD) and 95% credibility interval (95%Crl) for the full dataset for BGVIOL vs. BG (MD = 3.13; 95%CrI: 1.33 to 4.97), but not with the subset of data that excluded studies with high RoB (MD = 2.36; 95%CrI: -0.74 to 5.34). Color change in ΔSGU did not differ among groups. VIOL showed the lowest risk and intensity of TS. Color change achieved with BG and BGVIOL was higher than that obtained with VIOL. VIOL yielded lower risk and intensity of TS. The certainty of the evidence supporting these findings is low or very low.
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.