背景:使用紫色LED灯与含37%过氧化脲的漂白剂组合进行的办公室漂白方案的有效性,或者不是,通过比较不同变黑程度的牙齿来确定。
方法:将八十个牛门牙分为“浅色”牙齿(光度大于或等于B3)和“深色”牙齿(小于或等于A3.5)组,以接受以下方案:HP-35%过氧化氢(白度HP),CP-37%过氧化脲(白度SuperEndo),LED-紫色LED灯(明亮的最大美白),CPLED-与LED关联的CP。对于颜色分析,CIEL*a*b*eWID,ΔEab,使用ΔE00eΔWID参数。使用Mann-Whitney分析数据,Kruskal-Wallis,邓恩,弗里德曼或Nemenyi测试(α=5%)。
结果:HP和CP产生了相似的颜色变化值(ΔEab,ΔE00eΔWID)适用于浅色和深色牙齿(p>0.05)。深色牙齿显示出更好的漂白效果(ΔEab,ΔE00eΔWID)比使用CPLED时的轻齿(p<0.05)。LED显示出低于ΔWID的可接受性和可感知性极限的颜色变化。
结论:使用HP或CP可以有效地漂白牙齿,而深色牙齿对CPLED方案的治疗反应更好。单独使用的紫罗兰LED没有显示出令人满意的结果。
BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of in-office bleaching protocols performed with violet LED light either combined with a bleaching agent containing 37% carbamide peroxide, or not, was determined by comparing teeth with different degrees of darkening.
METHODS: Eighty bovine incisors were separated into groups of \"light\" teeth (luminosity greater than or equal to B3) and \"dark\" teeth (less than or equal to A3.5) to receive the protocols: HP - 35% hydrogen peroxide (Whiteness HP), CP - 37% carbamide peroxide (Whiteness SuperEndo), LED - violet LED light (Bright Max Whitening), CPLED - CP associated with the LED. For color analysis the CIEL*a*b* e WID, ΔEab, ΔE00 e ΔWID parameters were used. Data were analyzed using Mann-Whitney, Kruskal-Wallis, Dunn, Friedman or Nemenyi tests (α = 5%).
RESULTS: HP and CP resulted in similar color change values (ΔEab, ΔE00 e ΔWID) for light and dark teeth (p > 0.05). Dark teeth showed better bleaching effectiveness (ΔEab, ΔE00 e ΔWID) than light teeth when CPLED was used (p < 0.05). LED showed color change that were below the limits of acceptability and perceptibility for ΔWID.
CONCLUSIONS: light teeth are effectively bleached with the use of HP or CP, whereas dark teeth respond better to treatment with the CPLED protocol. Violet LED used alone did not show a satisfactory result.