Objective This study evaluated the influence of smoking on the oral cells genotoxicity before and after at-home bleaching using 22% carbamide peroxide (CP). Materials and methods This is a prospective observational analytics cohort study which evaluated nonsmokers (NS; n = 24) and smokers (S; n = 16) patients. At-home bleaching was performed using 22% CP gel in individual trays for 1 h per day for 14 days in both groups. Scrapped cells from marginal gums were collected before the bleaching treatment (D0- baseline ) and 1 day (D1), 15 days (D15), and 1 month (D30) after its finishing. Cells were stained with Giemsa 10%, and the micronucleus (MN) and metanuclear alterations (MA) were counted by a trained operator in 1000 cells per patient. The collections and data analysis occurred blindly. Data was analyzed by Kruskal–Wallis, Dunn, and Mann–Whitney test (α = 0.05). Results MN frequency was not influenced by smoking or bleaching. An increase of MA was observed between D0 and D30 for both groups ( p < 0.001); however, no statistical difference was found between NS and S ( p > 0.05) in the evaluation times. Conclusion Smoking associated with 22% carbamide peroxide gel for at-home bleaching does not show genotoxic potential analyzed by the MN counts. However, a significant increase of MA was found for smokers and nonsmokers. Clinical relevance Despite of the increase in MA, smoking associated with 22% CP peroxide at-home bleaching showed no important genotoxic potential (MN) for oral cells. Therefore, at-home bleaching treatment is safe for nonsmokers and smokers even with a high carbamide peroxide concentration of 22%.

No abstract

No abstract

Dental hard tissue conditions can be of pre-or posteruptive nature, such as enamel fluorosis and erosive tooth wear (ETW), respectively. Dental enamel fluorosis is caused by the chronic and excessive intake of fluoride during enamel development, leading to increased fluoride concentration and increased porosity. ETW has become a common clinical condition and often impairs dental function and aesthetics. This in vitro study tested the hypothesis that fluorotic enamel presents different susceptibility to dental erosion-abrasion. It consisted of a 3×3×2 factorial design, considering a) fluorosis severity: sound (TF0), mild (TF1-2), moderate (TF3-4); b) abrasive challenge: low, medium, and high; and c) erosive challenge: yes or no. A total of 144 human teeth were selected according to the three fluorosis severity levels (n=48), and subdivided into six groups (n = 8) generated by the association of the different erosive and abrasive challenges. Enamel blocks (4×4 mm) were prepared from each tooth and their natural enamel surfaces subjected to an erosion-abrasion cycling model. After cycling, the depth of the lesions in enamel was assessed by profilometry. ANOVA showed that the three-way and two-way interactions among the factors were not significant (p > 0.20). Enamel fluorosis level (p=0.638) and abrasion level (p = 0.390) had no significant effect on lesion depth. Acid exposure caused significantly more enamel surface loss than water (p < 0.001). Considering the limitations of this in vitro study, fluorosis did not affect the susceptibility of enamel to dental erosion-abrasion.