ArticleClinical oral investigations2026
Adhesive-based protective strategies for enamel cracks during in-office bleaching and their effect on hydrogen peroxide penetration.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 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
objectivesTo evaluate hydrogen peroxide (HP) penetration in teeth with enamel cracks and to investigate if adhesive-based strategies can reduce its permeability without compromising bleaching efficacy (BE). MATERIALS AND
methodsFifty human premolars (n = 10 per group) were allocated into five groups: unbleached sound teeth (control), bleached sound teeth, bleached teeth with enamel cracks without adhesive strategy (cracked enamel), and two groups with enamel cracks receiving adhesive protection prior to bleaching (three-step etch-and-rinse adhesive [3-stepER] and universal adhesive used in an etch-and-rinse strategy [UA-ER]). Enamel cracks were detected using transillumination and measured using ImageJ software. In the adhesive groups, phosphoric acid etching was followed by adhesive application before two bleaching sessions. HP penetration into the pulp chamber was quantified using UV-Vis spectrophotometry. Color was assessed at baseline and after 7 and 14 days using digital spectrophotometry. Final bleaching efficacy was calculated from the color change between baseline and day 14 (ΔE
resultsHP penetration differed among the bleached groups (p < 0.05). The sound group showed the lowest HP levels (0.21 ± 0.06 µg mL⁻¹), whereas the cracked enamel (0.36 ± 0.23 µg mL⁻¹) and 3-stepER (0.32 ± 0.11 µg mL⁻¹) groups showed similar intermediate values. The UA-ER strategy showed the highest HP penetration (1.81 ± 0.34 µg mL⁻¹; p < 0.05). No significant differences in BE were observed among the bleached groups.
conclusionsNeither adhesive-based strategy provided a protective effect against HP diffusion in teeth with enamel cracks. The 3-stepER strategy did not reduce HP penetration compared with unprotected cracked enamel, whereas the UA-ER strategy resulted in significantly greater HP penetration, indicating an adhesive-dependent response. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The use of adhesive systems as a protective strategy during in-office bleaching may not effectively reduce HP diffusion in teeth with enamel cracks. Clinicians should exercise caution when adopting such approaches.
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.