-
International Journal of Dental Hygiene Nov 2018Musculoskeletal disorders affect a high percentage of dentists, dental hygienists and therapists. Static and awkward working postures are considered as major risk... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
Musculoskeletal disorders affect a high percentage of dentists, dental hygienists and therapists. Static and awkward working postures are considered as major risk factors. Proper seat selection and use of magnification loupes are promoted for their ergonomic benefits. The aim of this review was to evaluate the existing empirical evidence on the effect of the above interventions on (i) correction of poor posture and (ii) reduction in musculoskeletal pain.
METHODS
The review was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42017058580). The Medline via Ovid, CINHAL via EBSCO, Web of Science, OpenGrey and EThOS electronic databases were searched. Prospective experimental studies were considered for inclusion. The Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool (EPHPP) was used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies.
RESULTS
Eight studies were included in the review. Four investigated the effect of loupes on posture and musculoskeletal pain, 4 the effect of the saddle seats on posture and one of the latter explored the combined effect of magnification and use of saddle seats on posture.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on a limited number of studies, the use of ergonomic saddle seats and dental loupes leads to improved working postures. The use of loupes appears to relieve shoulder, arm and hand pain. However, their effect on neck pain is scarce. None of the studies reported on the effect of the saddle seats on musculoskeletal pain. Future well-powered prospective longitudinal studies are deemed necessary to confirm the conclusions of this review.
Topics: Dental Hygienists; Dentists; Ergonomics; Humans; Lenses; Musculoskeletal Diseases; Occupational Diseases; Posture; Risk Factors; Sitting Position
PubMed: 29318741
DOI: 10.1111/idh.12327 -
International Dental Journal Oct 2021Because of the heterogeneous nature of the evidence regarding dentists' job satisfaction, an overview was necessary to examine dentists' level of job satisfaction and to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
Because of the heterogeneous nature of the evidence regarding dentists' job satisfaction, an overview was necessary to examine dentists' level of job satisfaction and to determine related work environmental factors.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A literature search was conducted using preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Electronic database searches of PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science were performed until March 1, 2020. Two independent authors collected data and assessed the methodological quality of primary studies using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale.
RESULTS
Nine studies were included from the 1987 initially retrieved. Among the included studies, 5 exhibited a neutral level of satisfaction and originated from China, South Korea, Egypt, and the United States, and 3 studies from Canada, Lithuania, and the United States showed a high level of satisfaction. Only 1 study did not report the mean job satisfaction score. According to bias evaluation, 9 studies were considered low risk.
CONCLUSION
The findings showed that dentists were satisfied with their jobs at a moderate to high level, and specialists were more satisfied than general dentists. Regarding work environmental factors, the 6 most satisfied factors were patient relationships, respect, delivery of care, staff, professional relationship, and professional environment. Five of the least satisfied factors were personal time, stress, income, practice management, and professional time. However, longitudinal studies would be required to identify changes in these factors. Further studies should be performed in middle- and low-income countries using the Dentist Satisfaction Survey, including stress evaluation.
Topics: Dentists; Humans; Income; Job Satisfaction; Republic of Korea; Surveys and Questionnaires
PubMed: 33612262
DOI: 10.1016/j.identj.2020.12.018 -
Journal of Dentistry Dec 2016We systematically reviewed treatment modalities for MIH-affected molars and incisors. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
We systematically reviewed treatment modalities for MIH-affected molars and incisors.
DATA
Trials on humans with ≥1 MIH molar/incisor reporting on various treatments were included. Two authors independently searched and extracted records. Sample-size-weighted annual failure rates were estimated where appropriate. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale.
SOURCES
Electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, Google Scholar) were screened, and hand searches and cross-referencing performed.
STUDY SELECTION
Fourteen (mainly observational) studies were included. Ten trials (381 participants) investigated MIH-molars, four (139) MIH-incisors. For molars, remineralization, restorative or extraction therapies had been assessed. For restorative approaches, mean (SD) annual failure rates were highest for fissure sealants (12[6]%) and glass-ionomer restorations (12[2]%), and lowest for indirect restorations (1[3]%), preformed metal crowns (1.3 [2.1]%) and composite restorations (4[3]%). Ony study assessed extraction of molars in young patients (median age 8.2 years), the majority of them without malocclusions, but third molars in development. Spontaneous alignment of second molars was more frequent in the maxilla (55%) than the mandible (47%). For incisors, desensitizing agents successfully managed hypersensitivity. Micro-abrasion and composite veneers improved aesthetics.
CONCLUSIONS
Few, mainly moderate to high-risk-studies investigated treatment of MIH. Remineralization or sealants seem suitable for MIH-molars with limited severity and/or hypersensitivity. For severe cases, restorations with composites or indirect restorations or preformed metal crowns seem suitable. Prior to tooth extraction as last resort factors like the presence of a general malocclusion, patients' age and the status of neighboring teeth should be considered. No recommendations can be given for MIH-incisors.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
Dentists need to consider the specific condition of each tooth and the needs and expectations of patients when deciding how to manage MIH. Strong recommendations are not possible based on the current evidence.
Topics: Dental Calculus; Dental Enamel Hypoplasia; Humans; Incisor; Maxilla; Molar; Pit and Fissure Sealants
PubMed: 27693779
DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2016.09.012 -
International Journal of Environmental... May 2020Musculoskeletal diseases and pain (MSDs) are prevalent among dental professionals. They cause a growing inability to work and premature leaving of the occupation. Thus,...
Musculoskeletal diseases and pain (MSDs) are prevalent among dental professionals. They cause a growing inability to work and premature leaving of the occupation. Thus, the objective of this review was to summarize the evidence of ergonomic interventions for the prevention of MSDs among dental professionals. This review was conducted using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The literature search was carried out in May 2018, with an update in April 2019. Scientific databases such as MEDLINE, CINAHL, PubMed and Web of Science as well as reference lists of the included studies were used. Relevant data were extracted from the studies and summarized. The quality assessment was performed using a validated standardized instrument. Eleven studies were included in this review, of which four are of high quality. Eight studies focused on setting prevention strategies. Of those, in five studies, magnification loupes or prismatic spectacles were the subject of ergonomic interventions. Further subjects were the dental chair ( = 2) and dental instruments ( = 1). Three studies evaluated ergonomic training. In all studies, the ergonomic interventions had positive effects on the study outcome. Several ergonomic interventions to prevent MSDs among dental professionals were found to exert a positive effect on the prevalence of MSDs or working posture. This systematic review adds current evidence for the use of prismatic spectacles in order to prevent MSDs among dental professionals. Further intervention studies about the role of ergonomics for the prevention of MSDs among dental professionals are warranted.
Topics: Dentists; Ergonomics; Humans; Musculoskeletal Diseases; Occupational Diseases; Pain; Posture
PubMed: 32429439
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17103482 -
BMC Oral Health Jul 2022Implantology represents the gold standard for oral rehabilitation, unfortunately, often, despite there are no local contraindications to this type of rehabilitation,...
OBJECTIVE
Implantology represents the gold standard for oral rehabilitation, unfortunately, often, despite there are no local contraindications to this type of rehabilitation, there are uncertainties regarding the general health of our patients. Many patients nowadays take bisphosphonate drugs, often without first seeking advice from an oral surgeon or a dentist. The purpose of this review is precisely to highlight any contraindications to this type of treatment reported in the literature, in patients who take or have taken bisphosphonate drugs.
METHODS
For this study the scientific information sources were consulted using as search terms "("bisphosphonate AND "dental implant")", obtaining 312 results, these were subsequently skimmed according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, and further evaluated their relevance to the study and the presence of requested outcomes.
RESULTS
Only 9 manuscripts (RCTs, Multicentric studies and Clinical Trials) were included in this review, as they respected the parameters of this review, they were analyzed and it was possible to draw important results from them. Surely from this study it is understood that the use of bisphosphonate drugs does not represent an absolute contraindication to implant therapy, it is evident how adequate pharmacological prophylaxis, and an adequate protocol reduce the risks regarding implant failures. Furthermore, the values of marginal bone loss over time seem, even if not statistically significant, to be better in implant rehabilitation with bisphosphonate drugs association. Only a few molecules like risedronate, or corticosteroids, or some conditions like smoking or diabetes have shown a high risk of surgical failure.
CONCLUSION
Although this study considered different studies for a total of 378 patients and at least 1687 different dental implants, showing better results in some cases for dental implant therapy in cases of bisphosphonate intake, further clinical, randomized and multicentric studies are needed, with longer follow-ups, to fully clarify this situation which often negatively affects the quality of life of our patients and places clinicians in the face of doubts.
Topics: Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Implants; Dental Restoration Failure; Diphosphonates; Humans; Quality of Life
PubMed: 35843929
DOI: 10.1186/s12903-022-02330-y -
Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine :... Jul 2015Since the previous parameter and review paper publication on oral appliances (OAs) in 2006, the relevant scientific literature has grown considerably, particularly in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
Since the previous parameter and review paper publication on oral appliances (OAs) in 2006, the relevant scientific literature has grown considerably, particularly in relation to clinical outcomes. The purpose of this new guideline is to replace the previous and update recommendations for the use of OAs in the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and snoring.
METHODS
The American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) and American Academy of Dental Sleep Medicine (AADSM) commissioned a seven-member task force. A systematic review of the literature was performed and a modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) process was used to assess the quality of evidence. The task force developed recommendations and assigned strengths based on the quality of the evidence counterbalanced by an assessment of the relative benefit of the treatment versus the potential harms. The AASM and AADSM Board of Directors approved the final guideline recommendations.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. We recommend that sleep physicians prescribe oral appliances, rather than no therapy, for adult patients who request treatment of primary snoring (without obstructive sleep apnea). (STANDARD) 2. When oral appliance therapy is prescribed by a sleep physician for an adult patient with obstructive sleep apnea, we suggest that a qualified dentist use a custom, titratable appliance over non-custom oral devices. (GUIDELINE) 3. We recommend that sleep physicians consider prescription of oral appliances, rather than no treatment, for adult patients with obstructive sleep apnea who are intolerant of CPAP therapy or prefer alternate therapy. (STANDARD) 4. We suggest that qualified dentists provide oversight—rather than no follow-up—of oral appliance therapy in adult patients with obstructive sleep apnea, to survey for dental-related side effects or occlusal changes and reduce their incidence. (GUIDELINE) 5. We suggest that sleep physicians conduct follow-up sleep testing to improve or confirm treatment efficacy, rather than conduct follow-up without sleep testing, for patients fitted with oral appliances. (GUIDELINE) 6. We suggest that sleep physicians and qualified dentists instruct adult patients treated with oral appliances for obstructive sleep apnea to return for periodic office visits—as opposed to no follow-up—with a qualified dentist and a sleep physician. (GUIDELINE).
CONCLUSIONS
The AASM and AADSM expect these guidelines to have a positive impact on professional behavior, patient outcomes, and, possibly, health care costs. This guideline reflects the state of knowledge at the time of publication and will require updates if new evidence warrants significant changes to the current recommendations.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Male; Mandibular Advancement; Middle Aged; Orthodontic Appliance Design; Orthodontic Appliances, Removable; Polysomnography; Positive-Pressure Respiration; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Severity of Illness Index; Sleep Apnea, Obstructive; Snoring; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26094920
DOI: 10.5664/jcsm.4858 -
International Journal of Clinical... 2020To assess the children's perceptions of the dentist's attire and environment. The protocol is available in the PROSPERO database.
AIM
To assess the children's perceptions of the dentist's attire and environment. The protocol is available in the PROSPERO database.
SEARCH STRATEGIES
Systematic searches in the databases were performed in Cochrane, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences, PubMed, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Web of Science from their inception to December 12, 2019, Google Scholar, Open Grey, and ProQuest Dissertations.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Criteria consisted of descriptive studies regarding the above matter while two authors assessed the information. The risk of bias was also performed.
RESULTS
Databases showed 1,544 papers and a two-phase assessment selected 21 studies in narrative and 9 in the quantitative synthesis. A meta-analysis demonstrated no difference between white coat and child-friendly attire (OR = 0.63; 95% CI 0.16-2.49; = 3,706) and a decorated plain dental clinic was the preference of the children's majority (OR = 8.75; 95% CI 1.21-63.37; = 150).
CONCLUSION
It can be concluded that there is no difference in the children's perception, white coat vs child-friendly attire; however, children prefer a decorated dental clinic.
HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE
Oliveira LB, Massignan C, De Carvalho RM, Children's Perceptions of Dentist's Attire and Environment: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2020;13(6):700-716.
PubMed: 33976499
DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1839 -
Health Technology Assessment... Jun 2020Impacted third molars are third molars that are blocked, by soft tissue or bone, from fully erupting through the gum. This can cause pain and disease. The treatment...
BACKGROUND
Impacted third molars are third molars that are blocked, by soft tissue or bone, from fully erupting through the gum. This can cause pain and disease. The treatment options for people with impacted third molars are removal or retention with standard care. If there are pathological changes, the current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance states that the impacted third molar should be removed.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this study was to appraise the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the prophylactic removal of impacted mandibular third molars compared with retention of, and standard care for, impacted third molars.
METHODS
Five electronic databases were searched (1999 to 29 April 2016) to identify relevant evidence [The Cochrane Library (searched 4 April 2016 and 29 April 2016), MEDLINE (searched 4 April 2016 and 29 April 2016), EMBASE (searched 4 April 2016 and 29 April 2016), EconLit (searched 4 April 2016 and 29 April 2016) and NHS Economic Evaluation Database (searched 4 April 2016)]. Studies that compared the prophylactic removal of impacted mandibular third molars with retention and standard care or studies that assessed the outcomes from either approach were included. The clinical outcomes considered were pathology associated with retention, post-operative complications following extraction and adverse effects of treatment. Cost-effectiveness outcomes included UK costs and health-related quality-of-life measures. In addition, the assessment group constructed a de novo economic model to compare the cost-effectiveness of a prophylactic removal strategy with that of retention and standard care.
RESULTS
The clinical review identified four cohort studies and nine systematic reviews. In the two studies that reported on surgical complications, no serious complications were reported. Pathological changes due to retention of asymptomatic impacted mandibular third molars were reported by three studies. In these studies, the extraction rate for retained impacted mandibular third molars varied from 5.5% to 31.4%; this variation can be explained by the differing follow-up periods (i.e. 1 and 5 years). The findings from this review are consistent with the findings from previous systematic reviews. Two published cost-effectiveness studies were identified. The authors of both studies concluded that, to their knowledge, there is currently no economic evidence to support the prophylactic removal of impacted mandibular third molars. The results generated by the assessment group's lifetime economic model indicated that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life-year gained for the comparison of a prophylactic removal strategy with a retention and standard care strategy is £11,741 for people aged 20 years with asymptomatic impacted mandibular third molars. The incremental cost per person associated with prophylactic extraction is £55.71, with an incremental quality-adjusted life-year gain of 0.005 per person. The base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life-year gained was found to be robust when a range of sensitivity and scenario analyses were carried out.
LIMITATIONS
Limitations of the study included that no head-to-head trials comparing the effectiveness of prophylactic removal of impacted mandibular third molars with retention and standard care were identified with the assessment group model that was built on observational data. Utility data on impacted mandibular third molars and their symptoms are lacking.
CONCLUSIONS
The evidence comparing the prophylactic removal of impacted mandibular third molars with retention and standard care is very limited. However, the results from an exploratory assessment group model, which uses available evidence on symptom development and extraction rates of retained impacted mandibular third molars, suggest that prophylactic removal may be the more cost-effective strategy.
FUTURE WORK
Effectiveness evidence is lacking. Head-to-head trials comparing the prophylactic removal of trouble-free impacted mandibular third molars with retention and watchful waiting are required. If this is not possible, routine clinical data, using common definitions and outcome reporting methods, should be collected.
STUDY REGISTRATION
This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016037776.
FUNDING
This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in ; Vol. 24, No. 30. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Topics: Cost-Benefit Analysis; Humans; Molar, Third; Treatment Outcome; United Kingdom
PubMed: 32589125
DOI: 10.3310/hta24300 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2019Halitosis or bad breath is a symptom in which a noticeably unpleasant breath odour is present due to an underlying oral or systemic disease. 50% to 60% of the world... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Halitosis or bad breath is a symptom in which a noticeably unpleasant breath odour is present due to an underlying oral or systemic disease. 50% to 60% of the world population has experienced this problem which can lead to social stigma and loss of self-confidence. Multiple interventions have been tried to control halitosis ranging from mouthwashes and toothpastes to lasers. This new Cochrane Review incorporates Cochrane Reviews previously published on tongue scraping and mouthrinses for halitosis.
OBJECTIVES
The objectives of this review were to assess the effects of various interventions used to control halitosis due to oral diseases only. We excluded studies including patients with halitosis secondary to systemic disease and halitosis-masking interventions.
SEARCH METHODS
Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 8 April 2019), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 3) in the Cochrane Library (searched 8 April 2019), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 8 April 2019), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 8 April 2019). We also searched LILACS BIREME (1982 to 19 April 2019), the National Database of Indian Medical Journals (1985 to 19 April 2019), OpenGrey (1992 to 19 April 2019), and CINAHL EBSCO (1937 to 19 April 2019). The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov (8 April 2019), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (8 April 2019), the ISRCTN Registry (19 April 2019), the Clinical Trials Registry - India (19 April 2019), were searched for ongoing trials. We also searched the cross-references of included studies and systematic reviews published on the topic. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which involved adults over the age of 16, and any intervention for managing halitosis compared to another or placebo, or no intervention. The active interventions or controls were administered over a minimum of one week and with no upper time limit. We excluded quasi-randomised trials, trials comparing the results for less than one week follow-up, and studies including advanced periodontitis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two pairs of review authors independently selected trials, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We estimated mean differences (MDs) for continuous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 44 trials in the review with 1809 participants comparing an intervention with a placebo or a control. The age of participants ranged from 17 to 77 years. Most of the trials reported on short-term follow-up (ranging from one week to four weeks). Only one trial reported long-term follow-up (three months). Three studies were at low overall risk of bias, 16 at high overall risk of bias, and the remaining 25 at unclear overall risk of bias. We compared different types of interventions which were categorised as mechanical debridement, chewing gums, systemic deodorising agents, topical agents, toothpastes, mouthrinse/mouthwash, tablets, and combination methods. Mechanical debridement: for mechanical tongue cleaning versus no tongue cleaning, the evidence was very uncertain for the outcome dentist-reported organoleptic test (OLT) scores (MD -0.20, 95% CI -0.34 to -0.07; 2 trials, 46 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for patient-reported OLT score or adverse events. Chewing gums: for 0.6% eucalyptus chewing gum versus placebo chewing gum, the evidence was very uncertain for the outcome dentist-reported OLT scores (MD -0.10, 95% CI -0.31 to 0.11; 1 trial, 65 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for patient-reported OLT score or adverse events. Systemic deodorising agents: for 1000 mg champignon versus placebo, the evidence was very uncertain for the outcome patient-reported visual analogue scale (VAS) scores (MD -1.07, 95% CI -14.51 to 12.37; 1 trial, 40 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for dentist-reported OLT score or adverse events. Topical agents: for hinokitiol gel versus placebo gel, the evidence was very uncertain for the outcome dentist-reported OLT scores (MD -0.27, 95% CI -1.26 to 0.72; 1 trial, 18 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for patient-reported OLT score or adverse events. Toothpastes: for 0.3% triclosan toothpaste versus control toothpaste, the evidence was very uncertain for the outcome dentist-reported OLT scores (MD -3.48, 95% CI -3.77 to -3.19; 1 trial, 81 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for patient-reported OLT score or adverse events. Mouthrinse/mouthwash: for mouthwash containing chlorhexidine and zinc acetate versus placebo mouthwash, the evidence was very uncertain for the outcome dentist-reported OLT scores (MD -0.20, 95% CI -0.58 to 0.18; 1 trial, 44 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for patient-reported OLT score or adverse events. Tablets: no data were reported on key outcomes for this comparison. Combination methods: for brushing plus cetylpyridium mouthwash versus brushing, the evidence was uncertain for the outcome dentist-reported OLT scores (MD -0.48, 95% CI -0.72 to -0.24; 1 trial, 70 participants; low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for patient-reported OLT score or adverse events.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found low- to very low-certainty evidence to support the effectiveness of interventions for managing halitosis compared to placebo or control for the OLT and patient-reported outcomes tested. We were unable to draw any conclusions regarding the superiority of any intervention or concentration. Well-planned RCTs need to be conducted by standardising the interventions and concentrations.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Chewing Gum; Chlorhexidine; Dental Scaling; Female; Halitosis; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Mouthwashes; Oral Health; Oral Hygiene; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tongue; Toothbrushing; Toothpastes; Young Adult
PubMed: 31825092
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012213.pub2 -
Brazilian Dental Journal Jun 2020There is an increased accessibility of over-the-counter (OTC) whitening agents with very little data in the literature regarding their effectiveness. This review was...
There is an increased accessibility of over-the-counter (OTC) whitening agents with very little data in the literature regarding their effectiveness. This review was done to determine their effectiveness of the predominant OTC whitening agents from 2006 until 2018 where a comparison of each agent was made with a placebo, no treatment or with other OTC whitening agents. The major categories of OTC whitening agents such as dentifrices, whitening strips and paint on gels. Dentist prescribed bleaching applied at home and in-office bleaching studies and studies that demonstrated whitening products to participants were excluded. Articles were searched for in the databases of Medline (Ovid), PubMed, the Cochrane Library and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Twenty-four articles were included in the systematic review and the quality of studies was determined by the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations) ranking criteria. Compared to other OTC, strips are reported to be effective. Two studies determined whitening strips to be effective. Whitening strips have been shown to be effective when compared with placebos and other OTC whitening agents. Dentifrices are effective in changing the shade of the tooth "by removing extrinsic stains" when compared to a placebo and non-whitening dentifrices, but they are not as effective in comparison to whitening strips. There is a lack of evidence with regards to the effectiveness of paint-on gels. While there is some evidence that OTC can alter shade in the short term, there is a need for better-designed studies.
Topics: Carbamide Peroxide; Humans; Tooth Bleaching; Tooth Bleaching Agents; Tooth Discoloration; Urea
PubMed: 32667517
DOI: 10.1590/0103-6440202003227