Abstract
Objectives: This clinical study aimed to compare tooth sensitivity scores and color change values before and 1 day following whitening treatments using different concentrations of whitening agents for in-office and at-home procedures. Materials and methods: A total of 60 participants divided into 3 groups were included in this study. A whitening procedure was carried out in groups using 40% hydrogen peroxide (HP) in in-office treatment, and 16% and 10% carbamide peroxide (CP), respectively. Participants rated their tooth sensitivity at the baseline and 1 day following the treatment. The CIElab values were recorded and color differences were calculated. Results: Within each of the whitening treatments, the tooth sensitivity scores significantly increased following the procedure (p<0.05). The largest significant increase in scores was noted in 40% HP in-office whitening treatment, while the lowest increase was noted in 10% CP at-home whitening treatments (p<0.05). The highest color change 1 day following the procedure was found in the 40% HP in-office whitening treatment group (3.3) and it significantly differed from both 16% CP and 10% CP at-home whitening treatments whose color difference was both 2.0, respectively (p<0.05). Conclusion: 1 day following the procedure, a low concentrate CP agent for at-home whitening causes the least tooth sensitivity compared to a higher concentrate CP for at-home and HP for in-office agents, with the same color change efficacy as a higher concentrate CP agent. In the case of slight tooth sensitivity reported at the baseline, a 10% CP whitening treatment should be recommended.
According to relevant studies,cistanche is a common herb that is known as "the miracle herb that prolongs life". Its main component is cistanoside, which has various effects such as antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and immune function promotion. The mechanism between cistanche and skin whitening lies in the antioxidant effect of cistanche glycosides. Melanin in human skin is produced by the oxidation of tyrosine catalyzed by tyrosinase, and the oxidation reaction requires the participation of oxygen, so the oxygen-free radicals in the body become an important factor affecting melanin production. Cistanche contains cistanoside, which is an antioxidant and can reduce the generation of free radicals in the body, thus inhibiting melanin production.
For more info:
david.deng@wecistanche.com WhatApp:86 13632399501
Introduction
Tooth color is one of the most important aesthetic visual parameters in dental medicine (1). Patients’ demands for esthetic appearance have increased over the past decade, including correction of their tooth color (2, 3). Therefore, tooth whitening becomes an increasingly requested dental technique considered more conservative for improving tooth color, thus avoiding more no invasive procedures such as for crowns or veneers (4).
Today there are two types of dentist-supervised whitening techniques for vital teeth: at-home whitening and in-office whitening (5). Both procedures provide whitening agents containing hydrogen peroxide (HP) or carbamide peroxide (CP) over the vestibular tooth surface (6,7). CP is a well-accepted agent for home whitening procedures where the patients apply the gel on the tooth surface using a customized tray. A 10% CP was considered a golden standard material for home whitening but to increase the efficacy of the material, higher concentrations of CP are being used (8,9). The main advantages of the home whitening technique are reduced chair time, ease to use, less gingival irritation, and lower tooth sensitivity (10). Manufacturers usually incorporate fluoride and desensitizing products in at-home whitening agents, such as potassium nitrate, that reduce tooth sensitivity TS (11). On the other hand, the in-office tooth whitening technique uses a much higher concentration of HP (15-40%), which produces faster tooth whitening results visible after only one visit (12). Despite the advantage of achieving faster results, the main disadvantages of this method are longer chair time, gingival irritation, and a higher risk of TS (13). A higher concentration of HP increases the activation of inflammatory receptors in the pulp chamber and causes tooth sensitivity (14). Some manufacturers have also incorporated fluoride or desensitizing products into the in-office gel formula to decrease sensitivity (4).
Many studies have already reported a certain degree of TS following different whitening procedures using various products containing different concentrations of HP or CP (15-20).
This randomized clinical study aimed to compare tooth sensitivity before and 1 day following in-office and at-home whitening treatments using different concentrations of HP and CPs in patients self-reporting mild sensitivity before the treatment. The null hypothesis tested was that the application of different concentrations of HP and CPs did not affect both tooth sensitivity increase and whitening results.
Materials and methods
Sample
The study was performed upon approval from the Ethics Committee of the School of Dental Medicine at the University of Zagreb. All participants were provided with a patient information sheet and were required to sign informed consent forms.
To determine the sample size, the Univariate Analysis of Variance was performed as a pilot on 10 subjects who had undergone whitening procedures using 40% HP, 16% CP, and 10% CP, respectively. Color differences (ΔE) were calculated with a p-value set to <=01. With the effect size produced of 0.55 in this sample size, there was a 99% chance to detect the difference in dE values (between different concentrations of whitening agents). Upon these results, we have decided to double the sample size aiming to achieve a total of 60 participants in the study. Participants were recruited from the group of postgraduate students of the School of Dental Medicine. After pre-investigation and post-investigation, the exclusion criteria were determined and the final number of participants was set to 60, and it was partially randomized in the group which reported a higher pain threshold. Finally, 41 women and 19 men (mean 27.5 and 34.5 years; respectively), using the inclusion and exclusion criteria and tooth sensitivity self-assessment as described in Table 1 and Figure 1 (5 excluded upon the criteria and 2 upon tooth sensitivity self-assessment) were selected.
Dropouts (2 participants were excluded due to the failures during the at-home whitening procedure) were replaced with new participants to achieve desired power of the statistical analysis. All the participants wanted to change the color of their teeth for cosmetic reasons. In 50% of the participants, the initial color was A1, and in 50% A2 or even darker.
Participants’ randomization upon tooth sensitivity assessment
After the exclusion of additional 5 participants from the initial group who did not meet the inclusion criteria, the participants were asked to self-assess any noticeable, short-term, transient, and sporadic tooth sensitivity experienced in the past year on a Numerical Rating Scale (NRC) circling the number between 0 and 10, wherein 0 represented no pain and 10 represented the worst pain ever possible (21). Further two participants did not report any pain and were therefore excluded from further studies (Figure 1).
Based on the obtained results, 20 patients with the lowest scores were included in the 40% of the HP in-office whitening treatment group. The rest of them were randomly distributed to one of two at-home whitening treatment groups (16% and 10% CP)(Figure 1).
One day following whitening treatment, the participants were asked to score possible occurrences of the previously described pain using the same NRC scale.
Positioning jig
The teeth of the participants were professionally cleaned (Proxyt RDA 36; Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein). One alginate (Hydrogum® 5, Zhermack, Badia Polesine (RO), Italy) impression of the maxillary arch was made, and a stone model (Fuji rock EP Classic line; GC, Tokyo, Japan) was produced to fabricate a modified form of whitening tray, 1-mm-thick thermoplastic tray material and thermoforming unit (Erkodent, Pfalzgrafenweiler, Germany), to make a positioning jig to ensure the placement of the tip of the spectro-photometer in the same position at every color measurement (at baseline, and 7 days following the treatment). An impression of the tip of the probe of the device was made and a cast was fabricated. The spectrophotometer probe cast was used as a stamp guide to mark the whitening tray. The facial middle-third of the maxillary teeth was marked with the spectrophotometer tip cast. The facial marks were cut, leaving an opening for the placement of the s probe. Before color measurement, the custom jig was positioned in the patient’s mouth, and the probe was positioned into the jig opening. The subjects were asked to brush their teeth at least twice a day to maintain a high level of oral hygiene.
In-office whitening treatment
Twenty participants chosen for in-office whitening treatment in this study were chairside treated with 40% HP (Opalescence Boost: PF 40, Ultradent, USA). Before treatment, protective lip cream, and a light-cured resin barrier Opal Dam (Ultradent, South Jordan, UT, USA) for gingival protection were applied (included in the kit). To prevent saliva from flowing through embrasures of anterior teeth, a saliva ejector and cotton rolls were used in the sublingual region. An expanded lip retractor was used to protect the lips. An Ultradent IsoBlock (Ultradent, South Jordan, UT, USA) was used to keep the tongue in a safe position. For Opalescence Boost PF, the activator was mixed into the whitening agent using an adequate syringe. The mixture was then applied, 1–2 mm thick, to the buccal surfaces of the teeth (canine to canine) of the maxillary arch. It remained there for twenty minutes. There were three applications. No heat or special lamps were used to complete the process. The agent was removed using suction and gauze only for a new application. After the third, and last, application, the teeth were rinsed with water and the gingival isolation and lip retractor were removed. Both the participants and the dentist wore protective glasses during the treatment.
At-home whitening treatment
In participants chosen for one of two at-home whitening treatments in this study (40 of them), maxillary and mandibular alginate impressions were made (Aroma fine plus fast set, GC, Tokyo, Japan), and stone casts were poured (Fuji rock EP Classic line, GC, Tokyo, Japan). The custom whitening trays were then made by using a 1-mm-thick thermoplastic tray material and thermoforming unit (Erkodent, Pfalz-grafenweiler, Germany). All excess was trimmed just short of the gingival margin. The participants were then randomly divided into two groups of 20 and each group was delivered with different concentrations of CP (Opalescence PF 16% and 10%, Ultradent, South Jordan, UT, USA). They were instructed to use their custom trays with the whitening gel for 14 consecutive nights, for at least six hours per night.
Instrumental color measurement
Instrumental color measurement was performed on six maxillary anterior teeth before whitening (baseline—t0) and 1 day following whitening treatment (t1). The VITA Easyshade Advance 4.0® (VITA Zahnfabrik, Bad Sackingen, Germany) spectrophotometer was used and calibrated according to the manufacturer’s instructions, with the operating mode set to single shade measurement. To provide accurate repositioning of the spectrophotometer probe and measurement of the middle third of the labial tooth surface over time, a custom positioning jig was made for each participant, as described in the previous chapter. The spectrophotometer measured the tooth shades based on the CIE L*a*b* color notation system.CIE L*a*b* (ΔEab) color differences were calculated using the formula:
The repeatability, accuracy, and reliability of this device have already been tested (23, 24).
Statistical analysis
Data were statistically analyzed using the statistical program SPSS 19.0 (SPSS, Chicago, IL, USA).
The normality of distribution was evaluated using the Saphiro-Wilk test and by inspection of data distribution graphs. Data were not normally distributed for variables about tooth sensitivity (P<0.05) except the tooth sensitivity variable assessed 1 day after the whitening treatment using 40% HP (P>0.05), and they were normal for color measurements (P>0.05).
Marginal homogeneity was performed to test the difference between patients’ assessments of tooth sensitivity within each whitening treatment before and 1 day after it. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to determine whether there were any differences in patients’ tooth sensitivity assessments between three different whitening treatments before and 1 day after it, and the Mann-Whitney tests for post hoc corrections to conduct paired comparisons between these three whitening treatment groups.
One-way ANOVA was used to test the differences between three different mean ΔE values and Bonferroni corrected post hoc tests (paired t-tests) were used to find the differences within three different ΔE values. The level of significance was set to 0.05 (5%).
Results
The distribution of patients’ assessment of tooth sensitivity before and 1 day following three different whitening treatments was found not to be normal in the majority of the variables (P<0.05)(Figure 2; Table 1). Both Skewness and Kurtosis values in patients’ estimated scores indicated of a mild asymmetry from the bell curve, with a slight shift towards the left (lower scores) and the lower peaks compared to a normal distribution (Figure 2). The only variable with normal distribution was the patients’ assessment of tooth sensitivity 1 day after the whitening treatment using 40% HP (P>0.05)(Figure 2; Table 1). Therefore, non-parametric statistical tests were conducted in the further analysis.
The results of the marginal homogeneity tests revealed a statistically significant difference in scores related to the sensitivity of their teeth given by patients before and 1 day following whitening treatments using 40% HP, 16% CP, and 10% CP (P=0.000, 0.000, and 0.008, respectively)(Figure 3). The patients’ scores 1 day following each of the treatments were significantly higher compared to baseline scores (Figure 3)( P<0.05). Mean values at the baseline and 1 day after the whitening treatment using 40% HP were 1.4 and 6.2, using 16% CP 1.9 and 3.0, and after 10% CP 1.7 and 2.2, respectively (Figure 3; Table 2)( P<0.05).
At the same time, baseline scores in all three different whitening treatment groups did not differ and the Kruskal-Wallis test revealed only small differences in mean ranks between them (Table 3; P>0.05). On the other hand, scores assessed 1 day following treatments significantly differed, with the highest mean ranks for 40% HP in-office whitening treatment and the lowest mean ranks for 10% CP at-home whitening treatment (Table 3; P<0.05). Using the Mann-Whitney test for post hoc correction with the significance set to P=0.016(P= 0.05/n of groups), this difference was confirmed to be significant only between scores for 40% HP and 10% CP whitening treatments.
The distribution of mean ΔE ab values in three different whitening treatment groups was normal (Table 4)(P>0.05). One-way ANOVA test confirmed the presence of statistically significant differences between mean ΔEab values. In 40% HP in-office whitening treatment, the mean color change was 3.3, and in both 16% CP as well as 10% CP at home, it was the same, 2.0, respectively. The Bonferroni corrected post hoc test revealed the difference was significant between the in-office and each of the at-home whitening treatment groups (P=0.026 and P=0.03, respectively), and no significant difference between the two at-home whitening treatment groups (P>0.05) was found.
Discussion
The null hypothesis was rejected as the application of different concentrations of HP and CPs using different techniques had a significant effect on both tooth sensitivity increase and whitening results. The patients’ scores of tooth sensitivity significantly increased following each of the treatments (Figures 2 and 3; Table 2)(P<0.05). At the baseline, all of them reported a very low level of initial tooth sensitivity and there was no statistically significant difference between them (Table 3)(p>0.05). The highest increase in tooth sensitivity following the whitening treatment was recorded in the in-office procedure using the highest concentration of HP agent (40% HP; Table 3)(P<0.05). In this particular group, the participants reported their initial tooth sensitivity on the NRC scale as slight pain (mean value was 1.4), but 1 day after the treatment it was moderate (mean value was 6.1). This was the only group whose final score shifted the threshold of mild sensitivity to moderate, which was expected since it had already been proven that higher concentrations of HP caused higher tooth sensitivity (25). To avoid the onset of severe pain and patients’ suffering during the research, we have decided to assign to this group those participants who initially (at the baseline) reported the lowest level of sensitivity (Figure 1). A significant increase in sensitivity in these two groups of at-home whitening treatments after the procedure was recorded too, but it was smaller and it remained within the range of (Figures 2 and 3)(P<0.05). These results are in agreement with other studies confirming tooth sensitivity after at-home whitening to be mild (15,16) and after in-office whitening to be moderate (17,18,) but in some cases even more severe to that level that patients decided to abandon the procedure (19). Jorgensen et al. reported mild tooth sensitivity to be expected in about one-half of patients who undertake at-home whitening treatment using 16% CP, 10% of patients to experience moderate sensitivity, and 4% to experience severe sensitivity for one to two weeks (26). Kihn et al. reported no significant difference in the sensitivity of the teeth in the 10% CP and 15% CP groups at the end of the study period and the same was confirmed in our study too (27).
Generally, when it comes to analyzing research in the field of dental whitening it is difficult to compare the results due to different concentrations of materials used, different protocols and techniques implemented, and inconsistent monitoring periods in research. The same is true for our study. Usually, the researchers ask patients to assess tooth sensitivity following the whitening treatment considering it excluded upon exclusion criteria, but the authors of this study find it almost impossible for participants never to experience any type of clinically relatively irrelevant tooth sensitivity, even in those cases where participants have completely intact and healthy teeth and gums. In our exclusion/inclusion criteria (Table 1) we have eliminated those to whom a particular condition in the mouth can clinically cause any type of tooth sensitivity. Nonetheless, when asked, the participants at the baseline self-reported a very low but existing level of sensitivity (Figures 1 and 2). We believe our results can contribute to clinical work upon making decisions about material and techniques to be used in cases where patients self-report a certain level of sensitivity despite the lack of clinical signs of sensitivity.
The results of our study confirmed a significant color change after 40% HP, 16% CP, and 10% CP whitening treatments. The color change for in-office treatment significantly differed from both at-home treatments as was expected and already confirmed in other studies (P<0.05). Again, it is difficult to compare the results due to differences in the assessment conducted immediately, one or two days, a week, or two following the treatment. Compared with the results of Matis et al. study, which compared several different whitening studies, the ΔEab for in-office treatment in our study matches theirs regarding a week after the procedure (28). However, our at-home whitening ΔE ab for both CP concentrations was significantly lower than their ΔE ab (28). One of the reasons probably lies in the fact that they evaluated 25 different whitening products in total, and we included in our research relatively younger participants with relatively lighter teeth at the baseline. Although somewhat lower, ΔEab values for in-office whitening treatment in our study were above both the 50:50% perceptibility threshold (PT) and 50:50% acceptability threshold (AT) (AT = 2.7, PT = 1.2), and ΔE ab values for two different at-home whitening treatments were above the 50:50% perceptibility threshold (PT) in dentistry proving that the procedures were successful (29).
As already mentioned, higher concentrations of HP and CP have been strongly related to a higher incidence of post-treatment (28). Therefore, to get faster results with less tooth sensitivity, some authors proposed the combined whitening technique consisting of a single in-office whitening session using lower concentrations of HP, followed by at-home whitening. Some studies reported that a combination of techniques has reduced the risk of tooth sensitivity and gum irritation, thus achieving good results in tooth whitening (30-34). This technique is especially recommended within EU countries because of the special EU Directive recommending the usage of lower concentrations of HP for in-office whitening treatments (35). It has to be mentioned that this study was conducted out of the EU and it is not under their jurisdiction; therefore we were allowed to use high concentrations of HP to prove that such a concentration particularly causes the highest level of tooth sensitivity, therefore not recommended for the patients reporting low level of tooth sensitivity before the treatment.
The limitation of this study is a relatively young sample with participants having lighter teeth. Our further study will expand the sample size and include those with darker teeth.
Conclusions
There was a significant increase in the level of tooth sensitivity in 1 day following all three whitening treatments. The highest tooth sensitivity occurred after 40% HP whitening treatment and the lowest after 10% CP whitening treatment. In the range of color change, the 10% CP was as effective as the 16% CP whitening treatment. Therefore, in the case of slight tooth sensitivity reported at the baseline, the 10% CP whitening treatment should be recommended.
Conflict of interest
The Authors declare no conflict of interest.
Author’s contribution: A.P. - Procurement of materials, Investigation, writing, and editing; M.S. - Methodology, writing, and editing, interpretation of results. D.I. - Statistical data processing, interpretation of results; D.K.Z. - Data collection and statistical processing, writing, and editing
Sažetak
Cilj: Cilj ove kliničke studije bio je usporediti rezultate osjetljivosti zuba i vrijednosti promjene boje prije izbjeljivanja u ordinaciji i kod kuće različitim koncentracijama sredstava za izbjeljivanje i jedan dan poslije. Materijal i metode: U istraživanje je bilo uključeno ukupno 60 sudionika podijeljenih u tri skupine. Postupak izbjeljivanja proveden je 40-postotnim vodikovim peroksidom (HP) za izbjeljivanje u ordinaciji, te 16-postotnim, odnosno 10-postotnim karbamidnim peroksidom (CP) za postupak kod kuće. Sudionici su ocijenili osjetljivost zuba na početku postupka izbjeljivanja i dan poslije završetka. Rezultati: Pri svakom postupku izbjeljivanja rezultati za osjetljivost zuba značajno su se povećali nakon zahvata (p < 0,05). Najveći porast zabilježen je za postupak u ordinaciji 40-postotnim HP-om, a najmanja osjetljivost zabilježena je za izbjeljivanje kod kuće 10-postotnim CP-om (p < 0,05). Najve- ća promjena boje nakon postupka izbjeljivanja uočena je u skupini za izbjeljivanje u ordinaciji (40-postotni HP) (3.3) i značajno se razlikovala od izbjeljivanja 16-postotnim i 10-postotnim CP-om kod kuće čija je razlika u boji bila 2,0 (p < 0,05). Zaključak: Nakon postupka izbjeljivanja najmanju osjetljivost zuba prouzročilo je sredstvo za izbjeljivanje kod kuće s niskom koncentracijom CP-a u usporedbi s višim koncentracijama CP-a za kućno izbjeljivanje i HP-a za izbjeljivanje u ordinaciji, s istom učinkovitošću u promjeni boje kao i sredstvo s visokim koncentratom CP-a. U slučaju da je blaga osjetljivost zuba prijavljena prije početka postupka, bilo bi dobro obaviti izbjeljivanje 10-postotnim CP-om.
References
1. Joiner A, Luo W. Tooth color and whiteness: A review. J Dent. 2017 Dec;67S: S3-S10.
2. Vaez SC, Correa ACC, Santana TR, Santana MLC, Peixoto AC, Leal PC, Faria-e-Silva AL. Is a Single Preliminary Session of In-office Bleaching Beneficial for the Effectiveness of At-home Tooth Bleaching? A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial. Oper Dent. Jul/ Aug 2019;44(4): E180-E189.
3. Samorodnitzky-Naveh GR, Grossman Y, Bachner YG, Levin L. Patients self-perception of tooth shade about professionally objective evaluation. Quintessence Int. 2010;138(6):805-8.
4. Basting RT, Amaral FLB, Franca FMG, Florio FM. Clinical comparative study of the effectiveness and tooth sensitivity to 10% and 20% carbamide peroxide home-use and 35% and 38% hydrogen peroxide in-office bleaching materials containing desensitizing agents. Oper Dent. Sep-Oct 2012;37(5):464-73.
5. Dahl JE, Pallesen U. Tooth bleaching-a critical review of the biological aspects. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med. 2003;14(4):292-304.
6. Matis BA, Mousa HN, Cochran MA, Eckert GJ. Clinical evaluation of bleaching agents of different concentrations. Quintessence Int. 2000;31(5):303-10.
7. Mokhlis GR, Matis BA, Cochran MA. A clinical evaluation of carbamide peroxide and hydrogen peroxide whitening agents during daytime use. J Am Dent Assoc. 2000 Sep; 131(9):1269-77.
8. Matis BA, Cochran MA, Eckert G, Carlson TJ. The efficacy and safety of a 10% carbamide peroxide bleaching gel. Quintessence Int. 1998;29(9):555-63.
9. Metz MJ, Cochran MA, Matis BA, Gonzalez C, Platt JA, Lund MR. Clinical evaluation of 15% carbamide peroxide on the surface microhardness and shear bond strength of human enamel. Oper Dent. Sep-Oct 2007;32(5):427-36.
10. Browning WD, Blalock JS, Frazier KB, Downey MC, Myers ML. Duration and timing of sensitivity related to bleaching. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2007;19(5):256-64; discussion 264.
11. Browning WD, Chan DC, Myers ML, Brackett WW, Brackett MG, Pashley DH. Comparison of traditional and low sensitivity whiteners. Oper Dent. 2008;33(4):379-85.
12. Matis BA, Cochran MA, Franco M, al Ammar W, Eckert GJ, Stropes M. Eight in-office tooth whitening systems evaluated in vivo: a pilot study. Oper Dent. Jul-Aug 2007;32(4):322-7.
13. Da Costa JB, McPharlin R, Paravina RD, Ferracane JL. Comparison of at-home and in-office tooth whitening using a novel shade guide. Oper Dent. Jul-Aug 2010;35(4):381-8.
14. Markowitz K. Pretty Painful: Why does tooth bleaching hurt? Med Hypotheses. 2010 May;74(5):835-40.
15. Rezende M, Loguerico AD, Reis A, Kossatz S. Clinical effects of exposure to coffee during at-home vital bleaching. Oper Dent. Nov-Dec 2013;38(6):E229-36. 16. de Geus JL, Bersezio, Urrutia J, Yamada T, Fernandez E, Loguercio AD, Reis A, Kossatzs S. Effectiveness of and tooth sensitivity with at-home bleaching in smokers: A multicenter clinical trial. J Am Dent Assoc. 2015 Apr;146(4):233-40.
17. Ozcan M, Abdin S, Sipahi C. Bleaching-induced tooth sensitivity: Do the existing enamel craze lines increase sensitivity? A clinical study. Odontology. 2014 Jul;102(2):197-202.
18. Paula E, Kossatz S, Fernandes D, Loguerico A, Reis A. The effect of perioperative Ibuprofen use on tooth sensitivity caused by in-office bleaching. Oper Dent. Nov-Dec 2013;38(6):601-8.
19. do Amaral FL, Sasaki RT, da Silva TC, Franca FM, Florio FM, Basting RT. The effects of home-use and in-office bleaching treatments on calcium and phosphorus concentrations in tooth enamel: An in vivo study. J Am Dent Assoc. 2012 Jun;143(6):580-6.
20. Zekonis R, Matis BA, Cochran MA, Al Shetri SE, Eckert GJ, Carlson TJ. Clinical evaluation of in-office and at-home bleaching treatments. Oper Dent. Mar-Apr 2003;28(2):114-21.
21. Haefeli M, Elfering A. Pain assessment. Eur Spine J. 2006 Jan;15 Suppl 1(Suppl 1): S17-24.
22. Gómez-Polo C, Gómez-Polo M, Martínez Vázquez de Parga JA, Celemín-Viñuela A. Clinical Study of the 3D-Master Color System among the Spanish Population. J Prosthodont. 2018 Oct;27(8):708-715.
23. Knezović D, Zlatarić D, Illeš IŽ, Alajbeg M, Žagar. In Vivo Evaluations of Inter-Observer Reliability Using VITA Easyshade® Advance 4.0 Dental Shade-Matching Device. Acta Stomatol Croat. 2016 Mar;50(1):34-9.
24. Knezović D, Zlatarić D, Illeš IŽ, Alajbeg M, Žagar. In Vivo and in Vitro Evaluations of Repeatability and Accuracy of VITA Easyshade® Advance 4.0 Dental Shade-Matching Device. Acta Stomatol Croat. 2015 Jun;49(2):112-8.
25. Machado LS, Anchieta RB, dos Santos PH, Briso AL, Tovar N, Janal MN, et al. Clinical Comparison of At-Home and In-Office Dental Bleaching Procedures: A Randomized Trial of a Split-Mouth Design. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. Mar-Apr 2016;36(2):251-60.
26. Jorgensen MG, Carroll WB. Incidence of tooth sensitivity after the home whitening treatment. J Am Dent Assoc. 2002 Aug;133(8):1076-82; quiz 1094-5.
27. Kihn PW, Barnes DM, Romberg E, Peterson K. A clinical evaluation of 10 percent vs. 15 percent carbamide peroxide tooth-whitening agents. J Am Dent Assoc. 2000 Oct;131(10):1478-84.
28. Matis BA, Cochran MA, Eckert G. Review of the effectiveness of various tooth whitening systems. Oper Dent. Mar-Apr 2009;34(2):230-5.
29. Paravina RD, Ghinea R, Herrera LJ, Bona AD, Igiel C, Linninger M, et al. Color difference thresholds in dentistry. J Esthet Restor Dent. Mar-Apr 2015;27 Suppl 1:S1-9.
30. Kugle G, Perry RD, Hoang E, Scherer W. Effective tooth bleaching in 5 days: using a combined in-office and at-home bleaching system. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 1997 Apr;18(4):378, 380-3.
31. Matis Ba, Cochran MA, Wang G, Eckert GJ. A clinical evaluation of two in-office bleaching regimens with and without tray bleaching. Oper Dent. Mar-Apr 2009;34(2):142-9.
32. de Geus JL, Wambier LM, Kossatz S, Loguerico AD, Reis A. At-home vs in-office bleaching: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Oper Dent. Jul-Aug 2016;41(4):341-56.
33. Knezović Zlatarić D, Žagar M, Illeš D. A clinical study assessing the short-term efficacy of combined in-office/at-home whitening treatment. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2019 Mar;31(2):140-146.
34. MeSH Browser [database on the Internet]. Council Directive 2011/84/EU of 20 September 2011 amending Directive 76/768/EEC, concerning cosmetic products, to adapt Annex III thereto to technical progress Text with EEA relevance.
For more info: david.deng@wecistanche.com WhatApp:86 13632399501
