PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
BACKGROUND: Light-cured resins are widely used as gingival barriers to protect the gums from highly concentrated peroxides used in tooth bleaching. The impact of barrier brand on clinical outcomes is typically considered negligible. However, there is limited evidence on the effects of different brands on operator experience, barrier adaptation, and patient comfort.
OBJECTIVE: This clinical trial assessed the impact of four commercial gingival barrier brands (Opaldam, Topdam, Lysadam, and Maxdam) on operator perception, adaptation quality, and patient comfort.
METHODS: Twenty-one undergraduate students placed gingival barriers in a randomized sequence using blinded syringes. Photographs of the barriers were taken from frontal and incisal perspectives. After bleaching procedures, operators rated handling features and safety using Likert scale forms. Two experienced evaluators independently assessed barrier adaptation quality on a scale from 1 (perfect) to 5 (unacceptable). The absolute risk of barrier-induced discomfort was recorded. Data were analyzed using Friedman and Chi-square tests (α = 0.05).
RESULTS: Opaldam and Topdam received the highest scores in most handling features, except for removal, which was similar among all brands. No significant difference was observed in barrier adaptation quality between the evaluated brands. Discomforts were mainly reported in the upper dental arch, with Maxdam having the highest absolute risk (35% for this arch and 24% overall).
CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that gingival barrier brands can influence operator perception and patient comfort. Opaldam and Topdam were preferred by operators, but all brands demonstrated comparable adaptation quality.
BACKGROUND: The study was nested in a randomized clinical trial registered in the Brazilian Clinical Trials Registry under identification number RBR-9gtr9sc.
OBJECTIVE: This clinical trial assessed the impact of four commercial gingival barrier brands (Opaldam, Topdam, Lysadam, and Maxdam) on operator perception, adaptation quality, and patient comfort.
METHODS: Twenty-one undergraduate students placed gingival barriers in a randomized sequence using blinded syringes. Photographs of the barriers were taken from frontal and incisal perspectives. After bleaching procedures, operators rated handling features and safety using Likert scale forms. Two experienced evaluators independently assessed barrier adaptation quality on a scale from 1 (perfect) to 5 (unacceptable). The absolute risk of barrier-induced discomfort was recorded. Data were analyzed using Friedman and Chi-square tests (α = 0.05).
RESULTS: Opaldam and Topdam received the highest scores in most handling features, except for removal, which was similar among all brands. No significant difference was observed in barrier adaptation quality between the evaluated brands. Discomforts were mainly reported in the upper dental arch, with Maxdam having the highest absolute risk (35% for this arch and 24% overall).
CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that gingival barrier brands can influence operator perception and patient comfort. Opaldam and Topdam were preferred by operators, but all brands demonstrated comparable adaptation quality.
BACKGROUND: The study was nested in a randomized clinical trial registered in the Brazilian Clinical Trials Registry under identification number RBR-9gtr9sc.
摘要：
背景:光固化树脂广泛用作牙龈屏障以保护牙龈免受牙齿漂白中使用的高浓度过氧化物的影响。屏障品牌对临床结果的影响通常被认为是可以忽略的。然而,关于不同品牌对运营商经验的影响的证据有限，屏障适应，和病人的舒适。
目的：这项临床试验评估了四个商业牙龈屏障品牌（Opaldam，Topdam,Lysadam,和Maxdam)对操作员的感知，适应质量，和病人的舒适。
方法：21名本科生使用盲式注射器以随机顺序放置牙龈屏障。障碍物的照片是从正面和切面的角度拍摄的。漂白程序后，操作员使用Likert量表对处理功能和安全性进行评级。两名经验丰富的评估人员以1（完美）至5（不可接受）的等级独立评估了屏障适应质量。记录屏障引起的不适的绝对风险。数据采用Friedman检验和卡方检验(α=0.05)。
结果：Opaldam和Topdam在大多数处理功能中得分最高，除了移除，这在所有品牌中都是相似的。评估品牌之间的屏障适应质量没有显着差异。不适主要报告在上牙弓，Maxdam的绝对风险最高(该拱门为35%，整体为24%)。
结论：这项研究表明，牙龈屏障品牌可以影响操作者的感知和患者的舒适度。Opaldam和Topdam是运营商的首选，但所有品牌都表现出相当的适应质量。
背景：该研究嵌套在巴西临床试验注册中心注册的一项随机临床试验中，识别号为RBR-9gtr9sc。
目的：这项临床试验评估了四个商业牙龈屏障品牌（Opaldam，Topdam,Lysadam,和Maxdam)对操作员的感知，适应质量，和病人的舒适。
方法：21名本科生使用盲式注射器以随机顺序放置牙龈屏障。障碍物的照片是从正面和切面的角度拍摄的。漂白程序后，操作员使用Likert量表对处理功能和安全性进行评级。两名经验丰富的评估人员以1（完美）至5（不可接受）的等级独立评估了屏障适应质量。记录屏障引起的不适的绝对风险。数据采用Friedman检验和卡方检验(α=0.05)。
结果：Opaldam和Topdam在大多数处理功能中得分最高，除了移除，这在所有品牌中都是相似的。评估品牌之间的屏障适应质量没有显着差异。不适主要报告在上牙弓，Maxdam的绝对风险最高(该拱门为35%，整体为24%)。
结论：这项研究表明，牙龈屏障品牌可以影响操作者的感知和患者的舒适度。Opaldam和Topdam是运营商的首选，但所有品牌都表现出相当的适应质量。
背景：该研究嵌套在巴西临床试验注册中心注册的一项随机临床试验中，识别号为RBR-9gtr9sc。
