Efficacy of products for bleaching and whitening under orthodontic brackets

Abstract

Introduction: Many patients wearing orthodontic appliances request alterations in the shade of their teeth during orthodontic treatment. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of different products for bleaching and whitening under orthodontic brackets. Methods: Seventy bovine incisors were randomly divided into five groups (n = 14): C) non-whitening toothpaste (control); WTsi) hydrated silica whitening toothpaste; WThp) 2% hydrogen peroxide whitening toothpaste; OB) in-office bleaching; and HB) at-home bleaching. Two buccal surface areas were evaluated using the Easyshade spectrophotometer: under the metal bracket (experimental) and around the bracket (control). The paired t-test, ANOVA, and Tukey tests were applied for statistical analysis. Results: Intragroup comparisons showed that in groups C, WThp and HB, there were statistically significant differences in the enamel color changes (ΔEab) between under and around the bracket areas (C - under bracket = 7.97 ± 2.35, around bracket = 2.86 ± 0.81, p< 0.01; WThp - under bracket = 4.69 ± 2.98, around bracket = 2.05 ± 1.41, p< 0.01; HB - under bracket = 7.41 ± 2.89, around bracket: 9.86 ± 3.32, p= 0.02). Groups WTsi, OB and HB presented similar perception of tooth whiteness (ΔWID) between the tested areas. Intergroup comparisons demonstrated that under the bracket area, the color change (ΔEab) was similar for all groups, except WThp (C = 7.97 ± 2.35; WTsi = 8.54 ± 3.63; WThp = 4.69 ± 2.98; OB = 9.31 ± 4.32; HB = 7.41 ± 2.89; p< 0.01). Conclusions: The dental color changes were effective for the products tested in groups WTsi, OB and HB in the presence of metallic orthodontic brackets.

Comparison of maxillary transversal changes between auxiliary beta‐titanium expansion arch and miniscrew‐assisted rapid palatal expansion

“…These results are probably related to the increase in the skeletal measurements, which despite not having shown statistically significant differences, were numerically greater in the MARPE group and corroborated with previous findings 17,18,24 . Although the skeletal measurements did not present a statistically significant change, the values obtained in the present study for the MARPE group for the interjugular distance (J‐J: 2.77 mm) and nasal base (NB‐NB: 2.82 mm) are in accordance with the values described in the literature 19,29–31 …”

“…17,18,24 Although the skeletal measurements did not present a statistically significant change, the values obtained in the present study for the MARPE group for the interjugular distance (J-J: 2.77 mm) and nasal base (NB-NB: 2.82 mm) are in accordance with the values described in the literature. 19,[29][30][31] The transverse increment of 3.26 mm at the maxillary interfirst molar distance in the group treated using AEA observed in the present study (Table 4) is similar to the values observed in a previous study 10 and a clinical report. 9 The CBCT scans were obtained using different devices in each group so that there were different voxels (AEA group: 0.25 group; MARPE group: 0.08).…”

“…This protocol may be used in adolescents and adults 12–16 . The MARPE appliance expanded the limits for performing maxillary disjunction in young adults without requiring combined surgical treatment, reducing costs and the inherent risks of surgery 17–19 …”

“…[12][13][14][15][16] The MARPE appliance expanded the limits for performing maxillary disjunction in young adults without requiring combined surgical treatment, reducing costs and the inherent risks of surgery. [17][18][19] Since AEA and MARPE may be used to correct transverse discrepancies in adult patients, it is essential to consider their effects to select the better treatment option for each patient, providing a better prognosis. The authors are unaware of studies that compared these treatment options.…”

Comparison of Tooth Color and Enamel and Dentinal Thickness between Orthodontically Treated and Untreated Individuals

“…(3) no carious lesions or restorations; (4) no enamel decalcifications; (5) no severe plaque ac-cumulation; (6) no history of bleaching; (7) no history of daily use of chlorohexidine mouth rinses; (8) medically and mentally fit with no disabilities; and (9) availability of a CBCT image showing at least the anterior maxilla. The teeth examined were maxillary centrals (#11), laterals (#22), canines (#13), and first premolars (#24).…”