2.1

Protocol and registration

This study’s protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO – CRD42016037630) and followed the recommendations of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement for reports [ ].

2.2

Information sources and search strategy

The controlled vocabulary (MeSH terms) and free keywords in the search strategy were defined based on the following PICO categories:

• 1.

  Population (P): adult patients who underwent vital tooth bleaching;

• 2.

  Intervention (I): in-office bleaching with light;

• 3.

  Comparison (C): in-office bleaching without light;

• 4.

  The outcome (O): color change in shade guide units (ΔSGU) and per a spectrophotometer (ΔE*) as well as the risk and intensity of TS taken after dental bleaching;

• 5.

  Study design (S): RCTs.

Electronic databases (MEDLINE via PubMed, Cochrane Library, Brazilian Library in Dentistry, and Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature database [LILACS]) and citation databases (Scopus and Web of Science) were searched ( Table 1 ). The reference lists of all primary studies were manually searched for additional relevant publications. We also searched the related article links of each primary study in the PubMed database without restrictions on publication date or Latin-based languages.

Additionally, gray literature was investigated by searching the abstracts of the annual conference of the International Association for Dental Research and its regional divisions (1990–2016), the database System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe, and dissertations and theses using the ProQuest Dissertations and Theses full-text database as well as the Periódicos Capes Theses database.

To locate unpublished and ongoing trials related to the review question, clinical-trial registries were searched: Current Controlled Trials ( www.controlled-trials.com ), International Clinical Trials Registry Platform ( http://apps.who.int/trialsearch/ ), ClinicalTrials.gov ( www.clinicaltrials.gov ), Rebec ( www.rebec.gov.br ), and EU Clinical Trials Register ( https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu ).

2.3

Eligibility criteria

We included parallel and split-mouth RCTs that compared in-office dental bleaching with and without light in adult patients of any age group. RCTs were excluded if 1) the studies compared only different light-activated in-office bleaching treatments and 2) the studies compared in-office dental bleaching with combined bleaching (at-home bleaching with jump-start in-office bleaching).

2.4

Study selection and data collection process

Initially, the articles were selected by title and abstract in accordance with the previously described search strategy. Articles that appeared in more than one database were considered only once. Full-text articles were also obtained when the title and abstract presented insufficient information to make a clear decision. Subsequently, three reviewers classified those that met the inclusion criteria. Each eligible article received a study ID, combining the first author and year of publication.

Relevant information about the study design, participants, interventions, and outcomes was extracted independently through customized extraction forms by three authors; in cases of disagreement, a decision was reached by consensus. If there were multiple reports of the same study (i.e., reports with different follow-ups), data from all reports were extracted directly into a single data-collection form to avoid overlapping data. When data were not reported in the studies, authors were contacted by e-mail at least twice to request the missing information.

Concerning immediate color change, results from 1 week to 1 month post bleaching, depending on what the authors reported, were extracted. Regarding TS, the data from the most immediate period were collected.

2.5

Risk of bias in individual studies

Quality assessments of the selected trials were carried out by three independent reviewers using the Cochrane Collaboration tool for assessing the risk of bias in RCTs [ ]. The assessment criteria contained six items: sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of the outcome assessors, incomplete outcome data, selective outcome reporting, and other possible sources of bias. During data selection and quality assessment, any disagreements between the reviewers were solved through discussion, and if needed, consultation with a fourth reviewer (A.R.).

For each aspect of the quality assessment, the risk of bias was scored following the recommendations in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 5.1.0 ( ). Each domain level was judged as having a low, high, or unclear risk of bias. At the study level, the study had a low risk of bias if all key domains (see below) for each outcome had a low risk of bias. If one or more key domains were judged as having unclear risk, the study as a whole had an unclear risk; if at least one key domain was considered to have a high risk of bias, the study was considered to have a high risk of bias. When a study was judged as unclear in at least one key domain, its authors were contacted to obtain more information, which allowed for a definitive judgment (low or high risk of bias).

For the patient-centered outcomes, risk and intensity of TS, the key domains were adequate for sequence generation and allocation concealment (key domains). Patient blinding was not considered a key domain, as patients could easily identify the different bleaching protocols.

For color change in ΔSGU, three items of the Cochrane tool were considered key domains: adequate sequence generation, allocation concealment, and examiner blinding. However, for ΔE*, examiner blinding was not considered a key domain, as the previous knowledge of the treatment would not affect the results assessed by the spectrophotometer.

2.6

Summary measures and synthesis of results

Data were analyzed using Revman 5 (Review Manager Version 5.3, The Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark). Data from eligible studies were either continuous (intensity of TS, ΔSGU, and ΔE*) or dichotomous (absolute risk of TS).

Only studies classified as having low risk or unclear risk of bias in the key domains were used in the meta-analysis of each outcome. The outcomes were summarized by calculating the risk ratio and the standardized mean difference for dichotomous data and continuous data, respectively along with the 95% confidence interval.

The random-effects models were used. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Cochran Q test and I ² statistics. A subgroup analysis was performed for low- and high-concentrate bleaching gels. Studies with HP concentrations higher than 25% were classified as using high-concentrate products whereas studies with a concentration equal to or lower than 25% were considered to use low-concentrate products. Sensitivity analyses were also conducted to investigate the reasons for high heterogeneity whenever detected.

2.7

Publication bias

The funnel plot is a qualitative method for analyzing publication bias. For the continuous outcomes, the x-axis in the present analysis is the treatment effect (the overall standardized mean difference [SMD]) and the y-axis is the standard error of that treatment effect. For the dichotomous outcome, the x-axis is the risk ratio and the y-axis is the standard error of the log-risk ratio. We have not done this procedure separately for each subgroup due to the reduced number of studies in the subgroup with the low HP concentration.

2.8

Assessment of the quality of the evidence using GRADE

We graded the quality of the evidence for each outcome across the studies (body of evidence) by using the Grading of Recommendations: Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) ( http://www.gradeworkinggroup.org/ ) to determine the overall strength of the evidence for each meta-analysis [ ]. The GRADEpro Guideline Development Tool (available online at www.gradepro.org) was used to create a summary-of-findings table, as suggested in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 5.1.0 ( ).

The GRADE approach for the RCTs addresses five reasons (risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness of evidence, and publication bias) to possibly downgrade the quality of the evidence (1 or 2 levels). Each of these topics was assessed as having “no limitations,” “serious limitations,” or “very serious limitations” to categorize the quality of the evidence for each outcome as high, moderate, low, or very low.

2.1

Protocol and registration

This study’s protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO – CRD42016037630) and followed the recommendations of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement for reports [ ].

2.2

Information sources and search strategy

The controlled vocabulary (MeSH terms) and free keywords in the search strategy were defined based on the following PICO categories:

• 1.

  Population (P): adult patients who underwent vital tooth bleaching;

• 2.

  Intervention (I): in-office bleaching with light;

• 3.

  Comparison (C): in-office bleaching without light;

• 4.

  The outcome (O): color change in shade guide units (ΔSGU) and per a spectrophotometer (ΔE*) as well as the risk and intensity of TS taken after dental bleaching;

• 5.

  Study design (S): RCTs.

Electronic databases (MEDLINE via PubMed, Cochrane Library, Brazilian Library in Dentistry, and Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature database [LILACS]) and citation databases (Scopus and Web of Science) were searched ( Table 1 ). The reference lists of all primary studies were manually searched for additional relevant publications. We also searched the related article links of each primary study in the PubMed database without restrictions on publication date or Latin-based languages.

Additionally, gray literature was investigated by searching the abstracts of the annual conference of the International Association for Dental Research and its regional divisions (1990–2016), the database System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe, and dissertations and theses using the ProQuest Dissertations and Theses full-text database as well as the Periódicos Capes Theses database.

To locate unpublished and ongoing trials related to the review question, clinical-trial registries were searched: Current Controlled Trials ( www.controlled-trials.com ), International Clinical Trials Registry Platform ( http://apps.who.int/trialsearch/ ), ClinicalTrials.gov ( www.clinicaltrials.gov ), Rebec ( www.rebec.gov.br ), and EU Clinical Trials Register ( https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu ).

2.3

Eligibility criteria

We included parallel and split-mouth RCTs that compared in-office dental bleaching with and without light in adult patients of any age group. RCTs were excluded if 1) the studies compared only different light-activated in-office bleaching treatments and 2) the studies compared in-office dental bleaching with combined bleaching (at-home bleaching with jump-start in-office bleaching).

2.4

Study selection and data collection process

Initially, the articles were selected by title and abstract in accordance with the previously described search strategy. Articles that appeared in more than one database were considered only once. Full-text articles were also obtained when the title and abstract presented insufficient information to make a clear decision. Subsequently, three reviewers classified those that met the inclusion criteria. Each eligible article received a study ID, combining the first author and year of publication.

Relevant information about the study design, participants, interventions, and outcomes was extracted independently through customized extraction forms by three authors; in cases of disagreement, a decision was reached by consensus. If there were multiple reports of the same study (i.e., reports with different follow-ups), data from all reports were extracted directly into a single data-collection form to avoid overlapping data. When data were not reported in the studies, authors were contacted by e-mail at least twice to request the missing information.

Concerning immediate color change, results from 1 week to 1 month post bleaching, depending on what the authors reported, were extracted. Regarding TS, the data from the most immediate period were collected.

2.5

Risk of bias in individual studies

Quality assessments of the selected trials were carried out by three independent reviewers using the Cochrane Collaboration tool for assessing the risk of bias in RCTs [ ]. The assessment criteria contained six items: sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of the outcome assessors, incomplete outcome data, selective outcome reporting, and other possible sources of bias. During data selection and quality assessment, any disagreements between the reviewers were solved through discussion, and if needed, consultation with a fourth reviewer (A.R.).

For each aspect of the quality assessment, the risk of bias was scored following the recommendations in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 5.1.0 ( ). Each domain level was judged as having a low, high, or unclear risk of bias. At the study level, the study had a low risk of bias if all key domains (see below) for each outcome had a low risk of bias. If one or more key domains were judged as having unclear risk, the study as a whole had an unclear risk; if at least one key domain was considered to have a high risk of bias, the study was considered to have a high risk of bias. When a study was judged as unclear in at least one key domain, its authors were contacted to obtain more information, which allowed for a definitive judgment (low or high risk of bias).

For the patient-centered outcomes, risk and intensity of TS, the key domains were adequate for sequence generation and allocation concealment (key domains). Patient blinding was not considered a key domain, as patients could easily identify the different bleaching protocols.

For color change in ΔSGU, three items of the Cochrane tool were considered key domains: adequate sequence generation, allocation concealment, and examiner blinding. However, for ΔE*, examiner blinding was not considered a key domain, as the previous knowledge of the treatment would not affect the results assessed by the spectrophotometer.

2.6

Summary measures and synthesis of results

Data were analyzed using Revman 5 (Review Manager Version 5.3, The Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark). Data from eligible studies were either continuous (intensity of TS, ΔSGU, and ΔE*) or dichotomous (absolute risk of TS).

Only studies classified as having low risk or unclear risk of bias in the key domains were used in the meta-analysis of each outcome. The outcomes were summarized by calculating the risk ratio and the standardized mean difference for dichotomous data and continuous data, respectively along with the 95% confidence interval.

The random-effects models were used. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Cochran Q test and I ² statistics. A subgroup analysis was performed for low- and high-concentrate bleaching gels. Studies with HP concentrations higher than 25% were classified as using high-concentrate products whereas studies with a concentration equal to or lower than 25% were considered to use low-concentrate products. Sensitivity analyses were also conducted to investigate the reasons for high heterogeneity whenever detected.

2.7

Publication bias

The funnel plot is a qualitative method for analyzing publication bias. For the continuous outcomes, the x-axis in the present analysis is the treatment effect (the overall standardized mean difference [SMD]) and the y-axis is the standard error of that treatment effect. For the dichotomous outcome, the x-axis is the risk ratio and the y-axis is the standard error of the log-risk ratio. We have not done this procedure separately for each subgroup due to the reduced number of studies in the subgroup with the low HP concentration.

2.8

Assessment of the quality of the evidence using GRADE

We graded the quality of the evidence for each outcome across the studies (body of evidence) by using the Grading of Recommendations: Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) ( http://www.gradeworkinggroup.org/ ) to determine the overall strength of the evidence for each meta-analysis [ ]. The GRADEpro Guideline Development Tool (available online at www.gradepro.org) was used to create a summary-of-findings table, as suggested in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 5.1.0 ( ).

The GRADE approach for the RCTs addresses five reasons (risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness of evidence, and publication bias) to possibly downgrade the quality of the evidence (1 or 2 levels). Each of these topics was assessed as having “no limitations,” “serious limitations,” or “very serious limitations” to categorize the quality of the evidence for each outcome as high, moderate, low, or very low.

3.1

Study selection

The search strategy was initially conducted May 12, 2016, and was updated August 09, 2017. After database screening and duplicate removal, 6663 studies were identified ( Fig. 1 ). After title screening, 305 studies remained, and this number was reduced to 21 after a careful examination of the abstracts.

Flow diagram of study identification.

3.2

Characteristics of included articles

3.2.1

Study design and method of color evaluation

The characteristics of the 21 selected studies are listed in Table 2 . The parallel study design was predominantly used in these studies [ ], but some studies used the split-mouth design [ ].

Table 2

Summary of the primary studies included in theis systematic review.

Study ID	Study design [setting]	Number patients [drop-outs]	Subjetcs age mean ± SD [range] (years)	No. of males [%]	Baseline color/evaluated tooth	Groups/Materials	Bleaching protocol		Light source	Color assessment [outcome]	Tooth sensitivity: Scale [Outcome]
							Gel protocol Applications × min [sessions] (interval)	Light protocol	Spectrum (nm)/(Intensity, mW/cm 2 ) [power output (W)]
Almeida, 2012 [ ] and Almeida 2012 [ ]*	Parallel [n.r.]	40 [0]	n.r. ± n.r.	n.r. [n.r.]	n.r./n.r.	I: AH 10% CP a	I: 4 h/daily (21 days)	III: 20 s	III: 450–500 (400) [0.2]	Vita Classical o ; Photography	VAS 0–10
			[18–28]			II: IO 35% HP b	II-IV: 3 × 10 min [3] (7 days)	IV: 3 × 3 min	IV: 470–808 (120) [0.2]	[ΔSGU]	[Risk and intensity of TS]
						III: IO 35% HP b + light A
						IV: IO 35% HP b + light B
Alomari, 2010 [ ]	Parallel [n.r.]	40 [n.r.]	27.8 ± n.r. [18–40]	12 [30]	A3/Anterior teeth	I: IO 35% HP c	I-IV: 3 × 20 min [1]	II-IV: 3 × 20 min	n.r./(n.r.)/[n.r.]	Vita Classical o	NRS 0–3
						II: IO 35% HP c + light B				[ΔSGU]	[Intensity of TS]
						III: IO 35% HP c + light C
						IV: IO 35% HP c + light D
Bernardon, 2010 [ ]	Split-mouth	90 [1]	n.r. ± n.r. [n.r.–n.r.]	n.r. [n.r.]	A2/Anterior teeth	I: AH 10% CP a vs. IO 35% HP b + light B	AH: 8 h/daily (14 days)	4 min	n.r. (n.r.) [n.r.]	Vita Classical o ; Spectrophotometer p Photography	VAS 0–10
	[n.r.]					II: IO 35% HP b vs . IO 35% HP b + light B	IO: 3 × 15 min [2] (15 days)			[ΔSGU and ΔE]	[Intensity of TS]
						III: AH 10% CP a vs . IO 35% HP b + light B [1 session] and AH 10% CP a
Bortolatto, 2013 [ ]	Parallel [n.r.]	40 [8]	n.r. ± n.r.	n.r. [n.r.]	n.r./n.r.	I: IO 35% HP d	I: 3 × 15 min [3] (7 days)	3 × 4 min	425–480/810 (300) [1.8/0.6]	Spectrophotometer p	VAS 0–100
			[18–25]			II: IO 35% HP d + light B	II: 3 × 8 min [3] (7 days)			[ΔE]	[Risk and intensity of TS]
Calatayud, 2010 [ ]	Split-mouth	21 [0]	n.r. ± n.r.	n.r. [n.r.]	A2/Anterior teeth	I: IO 35% HP e + light E	I and II: 2 × 10 min [1]	2 × 10 min	380–530 (n.r.) [n.r.]	Vita Classical o	n.r. [n.r.]
	[n.r.]		[18–38]			II: IO 35% HP e				[ΔSGU]
Freitas, 2016 [ ]	Split mouth	22 [0]	20.5 ± n.r. [18–25]	10 [45]	A2/Anterior teeth	I: IO 35% HP d	I: 3 × 15 min [1]	3 × 1 min (interspersing 1 min)	470/810 (35–400)	Vita Classical o	VAS 0–10
	[University]					II: IO 35% HP d + light B	II: 3 × 8 min [1]		[0.2]	[ΔSGU]	[Risk of TS]
Gurgan, 2010 [ ]	Parallel [n.r.]	40 [0]	27.3 ± n.r. [18–30]	11 [27.5]	A3/Anterior teeth	I: IO 38% HP c	I: 2 × 15 min [1]	II: 2 × 105 s	II: 815 (n.r.) [10]	Vita Classical o	VAS 0–10
						II: IO 37% HP f + light E	II: 3 × 8 min [1]	III: 2 × 10 min (interspersing 30 s)	III: 400–490 (2800) [n.r]	Spectrophotometer p Photography	[Intensity of TS]
						III: IO 35% HP g + light F	III: 3 × 20 min [1]	IV: 2 × 20 min	IV: 400–500 (n.r.) [n.r.]	[ΔSGU and ΔE]
						IV: IO 38% HP h + light C	IV: 2 × 20 min [1]
Henry, 2013 [ ]	Split-mouth	49 [0]	38.4 ± 13.6	24 [49]	A3/Anterior teeth	I: IO 25% HP i + light D	I and II: 3 × 15 min [1]	3 × 15 min	n.r. (n.r.) [n.r.]	Spectrophotometer p	VAS 0–10
	[n.r.]		[n.r.–n.r.]			II: IO 25% HP i				[ΔE]	[Intensity of TS]
Kossatz, 2011 [ ]	Parallel [University]	30 [0]	n.r. ± n.r.	n.r. [n.r.]	C2/Upper Incisor	I: IO 35% HP b + light B	I and II: 3 × 15 min [2] (7 days)	3 × 5 min (interspersing 2 min)	470/830 (200) [n.r.]	Vita Classical o	VAS 0–10
			[n.r–n.r.]			II: IO 35% HP b				[ΔSGU]	[Risk]
Kugel, 2006 [ ]	Split-mouth	10 [0]	n.r. ± n.r.	n.r. [n.r.]	A3/Anterior teeth	I: IO 15% HP j + light F	I and II: 3 × 20 min [1]	3 × 20 min	n.r. (n.r.) [n.r.]	Vita Classical o	Questionary
	[n.r.]		[n.r–n.r.]			II: IO 38% HP c				Photography	[Risk of TS]
										[ΔSGU and ΔE]
Kugel, 2009 [ ]	Parallel [University]	33 [3]	30.9 ± n.r. [22–48]	n.r. [n.r.]	A2/Anterior teeth	I: IO 25% HP k + light D	I-III: 3 × 20 min [1]	20 min	n.r. (n.r.) [n.r.]	Photography	NRS 0–3
						II: IO 25% HP k				[ΔE]	[Risk of TS]
						III: only light D
Marson, 2008 [ ]	Parallel [n.r.]	40 [0]	n.r. ± n.r.	n.r. [n.r.]	n.r./Anterior teeth	I: IO 35% HP b	I-IV: 3 × 15 min [2] (7 days)	3 × 15 min	I: 400–500 (n.r.) [n.r.]	Vita Classical o Spectrophotometer p	NRS 0–4
			[18–28]			II: IO 35% HP b + light A			II: 450–500 (n.r.) [n.r.]	[ΔSGU and ΔE]	[Risk of TS]
						III: IO 35% HP b + light C			III: 470 (n.r.) [n.r.]
						IV: IO 35% HP b + light B
Mena Serrano, 2016 [ ]	Parallel [University]	77 [0]	22.5 ± 3.8 [18–27]	27 [35]	A3/Upper Canine	I: IO 20% HP b	I-IV: 3 × 15 min [2] (7 days)	5 × 1 min (interspersing 2 min)	470/830 (200) [n.r.]	Vita Classical o	VAS 0–100 and
						II: IO 20% HP b + light B				Spectrophotometer p	NRS 0–4
						III: IO 35% HP b				[ΔSGU and ΔE]	[Risk and intensity of TS]
						IV: IO 35% HP b + light B
Moncada, 2013 [ ]	Parallel [University]	87 [26]	23.2 ± 3.7 [18–37]	23 [26.4]	n.r./n.r.	I: IO 15% HP + light B	I: 3 × 15 min [1]	I: 5 × 1 min and 30 s	I: 470/830 (450) [n.r.]	n.r.	VAS 0–100
						II: IO 35% HP + light E	II: 3 × 10 min [1]	II: 3 × 6 min	II: n.r. (n.r.) [n.r.]	[n.r.]	[Intensity of TS]
						III: IO 35% HP l	III: 1 × 45 min [1]
Mondelli, 2012 [ ]	Split-mouth	48 [19]	n.r. ± n.r.	n.r. [n.r.]	A3/Anterior teeth	I: IO 35% HP d + light B	I and III: 3 × 11 min [1]	3 × 3 min (interspersing 1 min)	470/810 (350/200) [n.r.]	Spectrophotometer p Photography	VAS 0–10
	[n.r.]		[n.r–n.r.]			II: IO 35% HP d	II and IV: 3 × 15 min [1]			[ΔE]	[Intensity of TS]
						III: IO 38% HP c + light B	V: 2 h/daily (10 days)
						IV: IO 38% HP c
						V: AH 15% CP m
Ontiveros, 2009 [ ]	Split-mouth	20 [0]	n.r. ± n.r.	n.r. [n.r.]	A2/Anterior teeth	I: IO 25% HP i + light D	I and II: 3 × 15 min [1]	3 × 15 min	350–600 (n.r.) [n.r.]	Vita Classical o	VAS 0–10
	[n.r.]		[18–30]			II: IO 25% HP i				Spectrophotometer p	[Intensity of TS]
										Vita Bleachedguide 3D-Master q
										[ΔSGU and ΔE]
Papathanasiou, 2002 [ ]	Split-mouth [University]	20 [0]	n.r. ± n.r. [n.r.–n.r.]	n.r. [n.r.]	A3/Anterior teeth	I: IO 35% HP c + light A	I and II: 1 × 20 min [1]	20 min	n.r. (n.r.) [n.r.]	Vita Classical o Photography	Questionary
						II: IO 35% HP c				[ΔSGU]	[Risk of TS]
Polydorou, 2013 [ ]	Parallel [n.r.]	60 [0]	27.6 ± 5.0	n.r. [n.r.]	C1/Upper Canine	I: IO 38% HP c	I-III: 4 × 15 min [1]	II: 4 × 8 min	II: 480–520 (n.r.) [150]	Vita Classical o	n.r. [n.r.]
			[18–70]			II: IO 38% HP c + light A		III: 4 × 30 s	III: 980 (n.r.) [6]	Spectrophotometer p
						III: IO 38% HP c + light E				[ΔSGU and ΔE]
Strobl, 2010 [ ]	Split-mouth	20 [0]	n.r. ± n.r.	7 [35]	A1/n.r.	I: IO 35% HP n + light G	I and II: 2 × 1 min and 45 s and [2] (7 days)	3 × 10 s	1064 μm (n.r.) [4]	Vita Classical o	VAS 0–10
	[n.r.]		[n.r.–n.r.]			II: IO 35% HP n				Chromatometer ShadeEye NCC r	[Risk of TS]
										[ΔSGU and ΔE]
Tavares, 2003 [ ]	Parallel	87 [0]	44.0 ± n.r.	38 [44]	D4/Upper Incisor	I: IO 15% HP + light F	I-III: 3 × 20 min [1]	60 min	400–505 (130–160) [n.r.]	Vita Classical o	NRS 0–3
	[n.r.]		[20–67]			II: IO 15% HP				CR-321 Chromameter s	[Risk of TS]
						III: IO placebo gel + light F				[ΔSGU and ΔE]
Ziemba, 2005 [ ]	Parallel [n.r.]	50 [1]	n.r. ± n.r.	[n.r.]	A3/Anterior teeth	I: IO 25% HP i + light D	I and II: 3 × 15 min [1]	3 × 15 min	365–500 (n.r.) [n.r.]	Vita Classical o	VAS 0–10
			[18–70]			II: IO 25% HP i				[ΔSGU]	[Intensity of TS]

Only gold members can continue reading. Log In or Register to continue

Share this:

• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)

Related

Related posts:

1. Near infrared transillumination compared with radiography to detect and monitor proximal caries: A clinical retrospective study
2. A randomised clinical evaluation of a fluoride mouthrinse and dentifrice in an in situcaries model
3. Replacing amalgam with a high-viscosity glass-ionomer in restoring primary teeth: A cost-effectiveness study in Brasilia, Brazil
4. The effect on dental enamel of the frequency of consumption of fluoridated milk with a cariogenic challenge in situ
5. Periodontal status of tooth adjacent to implant with peri-implantitis
6. An in-situ pilot study to investigate the native clinical resistance of enamel to erosion

Stay updated, free dental videos. Join our Telegram channel

Join