Search

Objective: This clinical study evaluated the color longevity after one-year of at-home bleaching with 10% carbamide peroxide (CP) in smokers and nonsmokers., Methods: Sixty patients, 30 smokers and 30 non-smokers were subjected to bleaching with 10% CP during three hours daily for three weeks. The color was measured at baseline and one week, one month and one year after the completion of dental bleaching using the spectrophotometer Vita Easyshade (ΔE*), shade guide Vita classical organized by value and Vita Bleachedguide 3D-MASTER (ΔSGU). In the one-year recall, the color was assessed before and after dental prophylaxis with Robinson brush and prophylaxis paste. Data from color evaluation were analyzed by two-way repeated measures ANOVA and Tukey's test for the contrast of means (α=0.05)., Results: Twenty-seven smokers and 28 non-smokers attended the one-year recall. For both study groups, only the main factor assessment time was statistically significant for ΔSGU (Vita classical) and ΔE* (p<0.001). Effective whitening was observed for both groups at baseline, which was stable at one-month and one year after dental prophylaxis. A slight darkening was observed after one year when the color was measured without prophylaxis. For the Vita Bleachedguide 3D-MASTER, color rebound was observed irrespectively of dental prophylaxis., Conclusion: The bleaching with 10% CP remained stable in both groups as long as extrinsic stains from diet and cigarette smoke were removed by professional dental prophylaxis., Clinical Trials Registry: NCT02017873., Clinical Relevance: The results of this study indicate that the bleaching is effective in smokers even after one-year, but dental prophylaxis may be necessary to remove extrinsic stains caused by diet and smoking., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: The demand for tooth whitening has grown almost exponentially in the last 20 years, but there are no published reports regarding how bleaching is used in contemporary orthodontic practices in the United States., Methods: A weighted sample of American Association of Orthodontists members (3601) was surveyed via electronic and paper questionnaires to quantitatively, by logistic regression, and qualitatively assess orthodontists' current practices regarding tooth-whitening procedures., Results: Of the surveys, 1222 were completed, and 1182 surveys were eligible for analysis. Nationwide, 88.8% of orthodontists had patients who requested tooth whitening, and 76.2% of orthodontists had recently recommended whitening procedures for some patients, typically less than 25% of their total patient population. Approximately a third (32.8%) of orthodontists provided whitening, and nearly two thirds (65.8%) referred whitening procedures to other dental professionals. The geographic region of the country had a statistically significant effect on the proportion of orthodontists who received whitening requests (P = 0.004), recommended whitening procedures (P <0.0006), and provided whitening services in their specialty practices (P <0.0001)., Conclusions: Almost all orthodontists encounter patients who request whitening procedures, and most recommend whitening procedures for a small percentage of their patients. The proportion of orthodontists who refer such procedures to other providers is nearly double the proportion that provides them., (Copyright © 2013 American Association of Orthodontists. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The prevalence of dentin hypersensitivity is uncertain, yet appropriate diagnosis and treatment of dentin hypersensitivity require accurate knowledge regarding its prevalence. The authors conducted a study to estimate the prevalence of dentin hypersensitivity in general dental practices and to investigate associated risk factors., Methods: The authors conducted a cross-sectional survey of 787 adult patients from 37 general dental practices within Northwest Practice-based Research Collaborative in Evidence-based DENTistry (PRECEDENT). Dentin hypersensitivity was diagnosed by means of participants' responses to a question regarding pain in their teeth and gingivae, and practitioner-investigators conducted a clinical examination to rule out alternative causes of pain. Participants recorded their pain level on a visual analog scale and the Seattle Scales in response to a one-second air blast. The authors used generalized estimating equation log-linear models to estimate the prevalence and the prevalence ratios., Results: The prevalence of dentin hypersensitivity was 12.3 percent; patients with hypersensitivity had, on average, 3.5 hypersensitive teeth. The prevalence of dentin hypersensitivity was higher among 18- to 44-year olds than among participants 65 years or older; it also was higher in women than in men, in participants with gingival recession than in those without gingival recession and in participants who underwent at-home tooth whitening than in those who did not. Hypersensitivity was not associated with obvious occlusal trauma, noncarious cervical lesions or aggressive toothbrushing habits., Conclusions: One in eight participants from general practices had dentin hypersensitivity, which was a chronic condition causing intermittent, low-level pain. Patients with hypersensitivity were more likely to be younger, to be female and to have a high prevalence of gingival recession and at-home tooth whitening., Practical Implications: Given dentin hypersensitivity's prevalence, clinicians should diagnose it only after investigating all other possible sources of pain.

Since the mid-1980s, bleaching teeth has grown significantly in popularity. This article provides an overview of current practitioner trends relative to this procedure.