ABSTRACT
Among the number of vital bleaching techniques currently available to the clinicians, home bleaching and in-office bleaching are widely used in dental practice. Aim and Objectives: The aim of this in vivo study was to compare the clinical performance, durability, and related tooth sensitivity with two vital bleaching procedures (in-office and at-home bleaching), in a split-mouth design. Patients and Methods: Thirty adult participants having teeth shade mean of A2 or darker were selected for the study. One-half of the maxillary arch of each patient received in-office bleaching with 35% hydrogen peroxide gel, and the other half received 16% carbamide peroxide night guard bleaching. Shade evaluation was done with shade guide and spectrophotometer at 1, 2, 3, and 4 week intervals during bleaching and postoperatively at 3 and 6 month intervals. Tooth sensitivity was recorded using the visual analog scale during the experimental period. Statistical Analysis: Collected data of color and sensitivity readings were subjected to statistical analysis using SPSS/PC version 20 software. Intergroup comparison through unpaired t-test and within the groups using paired t-test was done. Results: At-home and in-office bleaching procedures are equally effective in producing tooth whitening. Color evaluation after 3 and 6 months showed more color decline for in-office bleaching procedure. For sensitivity parameter also, in-office procedure recorded higher sensitivity compared to home bleaching (P < 0.05). Conclusion: Both the bleaching procedures are equally effective in producing tooth whitening. In-office bleaching recorded higher levels of tooth sensitivity and greater color rebound than home bleaching.