Use of an applicator brush with high concentration bleaching gels.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate in vitro two high concentration self-mix bleaching gels (35% or 37.5%) with different application tips (with or without an applicator brush) during in-office bleaching. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Healthy premolars were randomly assigned to five groups (n = 8): no treatment; 35% HP without applicator brush, 35% HP with applicator brush, 37.5% HP without applicator brush, and 37.5% HP with applicator brush. After the procedures, the concentration of HP transferred into the pulp chamber was evaluated using UV-Vis. The amount of gel used in each group was measured on a precision analytical balance. Color change (ΔEab, ΔE00, and ΔWID) was evaluated with a digital spectrophotometer. Initial concentration was measured by titration with potassium permanganate. The pH was evaluated using a digital pH meter. The data from each test were submitted to nonparametric tests (α = 0.05). RESULTS: Using a tip with an applicator brush expended less gel and left a lower amount of HP inside the pulp chamber compared to the tip without a brush for both bleaching gels (p < 0.0003), although no significant difference in color change was observed (p < 0.05). The 37.5% HP showed a more stable and less acidic pH and a lower amount of HP in the pulp chamber than the 35% HP (p < 0.00001). CONCLUSION: The HP penetration into the pulp chamber was lower when using an applicator with a brush tip than when using one with a conventional tip. As for the color, both tips were considered to lighten teeth. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: For the application of a self-mixing high concentration in-office bleaching gel, a brush tip should be recommended because its use diminishes the penetration of HP into the pulp chamber and wastes less bleaching gel.

Gingival irritation in patients submitted to at-home bleaching with different cutouts of the bleaching tray: a randomized, single-blind clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: This split-mouth randomized, single-blind clinical trial evaluated the gingival irritation (GI) of at-home bleaching with individual trays of different cutouts, as well as the tooth sensitivity (TS) and color change. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred and twenty patients were randomized as to which side would receive the type of bleaching tray cutout: scalloped (in the gingival margin) and nonscalloped (extended from the gingival margin). The at-home bleaching was performed for 30 min with 10% hydrogen peroxide (HP) for 2 weeks. The absolute risk and intensity of GI and TS were assessed with a visual analog scale. Color change was assessed using a digital spectrophotometer and a color guide (α = 0.05). RESULTS: The proportion of patients who experienced GI was 57.5% (odds ratio 95% CI = 1.1 [0.7 to 1.8]), with no significant difference between groups (p = 0.66). The proportion of patients who experienced TS was 64.1% (odds ratio 95% CI = 1.0 [0.6 to 1.6]), with no significant difference between groups (p = 1.0). There is equivalence of scalloped and noscalloped groups for GI intensity (p < 0.01). Significant whitening was detected for both groups. Although some differences were observed between groups (CIELab and CIEDE00; p < 0.02), these were below of the considered clinically noticeable. CONCLUSIONS: The different cutouts of trays proved to be equivalent when regarding gengival irritation and tooth sensitivity when 10% HP for at-home bleaching was used. Significant color change was observed in both groups. However, significant differences detected between groups are not considered clinically noticeable. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Brazilian Clinical Trials Registry (RBR-2s34685). CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Scalloped or not, the individual trays for at-home bleaching could be considered a clinician's decision.