Premium
Safety Issues When Using a 16% Carbamide Peroxide Whitening Solution
Author(s) -
LEONARD RALPH H.,
GARLAND GLENN K.,
EAGLE JAMES C.,
CAIMAN DANIEL J.
Publication year - 2002
Publication title -
journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.919
H-Index - 60
eISSN - 1708-8240
pISSN - 1496-4155
DOI - 10.1111/j.1708-8240.2002.tb00178.x
Subject(s) - carbamide peroxide , irritation , dentistry , medicine , placebo , tooth sensitivity , enamel paint , alternative medicine , pathology , immunology
Background: The scientific literature is lacking on the occurrence of side effects and other safety issues when using carbamide peroxide whitening solutions of concentrations greater than 10%. This double‐blind nightguard vital bleaching study compares safety issues when using 16% carbamide peroxide against a placebo or 10% carbamide peroxide (Nite White Classic by Discus Dental Inc.). Evaluated were changes in gingival index, plaque index, nonmarginal gingival index, nongingival oral mucosal index, tooth vitality, and the patients' perceptions of tooth sensitivity and gingival irritation. Materials and Methods: Twenty female dental hygiene students participated in the study. Each participant wore a maxillary treatment tray for 1 week without any solution and then for 8 to 10 hours per night for 14 nights, filling each quadrant with placebo, 10% carbamide peroxide, or 16% carbamide peroxide, using a split tray design. Results: With respect to gingival index, plaque index, nonmarginal gingival index, nongingival oral mucosa index, tooth vitality, and tooth sensitivity, there were no statistically significant differences between the 16% carbamide peroxide solution and the other two solutions ( p > .05). Quadrants receiving the 16% carbamide peroxide solution experienced more gingival irritation than quadrants receiving placebo or 10% carbamide peroxide solution ( p > .05). Conclusions: When evaluating the above‐mentioned safety issues, except for gingival irritation, there were no statistically significant differences between a 16% carbamide peroxide solution and 10% carbamide peroxide solution or a placebo when used as described here. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE Among the 20 participants whose data were analyzed, it was found that a 16% carbamide peroxide whitening solution (Nite White Classic), when used as described in this study, can be effective in nightguard vital bleaching with no statistical differences in gingival index, plaque index, nonmarginal gingival index, nongingival oral mucosa changes, tooth vitality, or tooth sensitivity, compared with a 10% whitening solution (Nite White Classic). More gingival irritation was experienced with 16% carbamide peroxide. Additionally, 20% of the participants in this study self‐reported sensitivity when wearing their treatment tray without any solution, and 36% of the participants reported sensitivity to the placebo solution.