Scholarlink

Background/objectives <p>Light-assisted in-office whitening procedures are widely used in clinical practice; however, comparative clinical data remain limited, particularly when evaluated using objective outcome measures. This exploratory pilot randomized clinical trial aimed to generate preliminary comparative data on two commercially available light-assisted in-office tooth whitening protocols used under their respective manufacturers’ clinical recommendations. The study also explored immediate color change, tooth sensitivity, and patient-reported satisfaction to inform the design of future adequately powered randomized clinical trials.</p> Materials and methods <p>Twelve healthy adult participants (18–45 years) presenting extrinsic or mixed-type tooth discoloration (baseline shade VITA A3 or darker) were randomly allocated into two parallel groups (<i>n</i> = 6 each). One group received whitening with a 35% hydrogen peroxide gel activated by a diode laser device, while the other group underwent whitening with a 25% hydrogen peroxide gel activated by an LED-based device. Tooth color was measured before and immediately after treatment using a digital spectrophotometer (VITA Easyshade V), and color differences (ΔE) were calculated based on CIE L*a*b* coordinates. Post-treatment tooth sensitivity was recorded using a Visual Analog Scale (VAS), and patient satisfaction was evaluated through a structured questionnaire. Statistical analysis was performed using the Mann–Whitney U test.</p> Results <p>Both light-assisted interventions resulted in clinically perceptible whitening outcomes (ΔE &gt; 3.3). The LED-assisted group showed a slightly higher median ΔE value (9.71 [IQR 7.64–13.47]) compared with the laser-assisted group (10.87 [IQR 8.91–13.46]; however, the difference was not statistically significant ( Mann-Whitney U test, <i>p</i> = 0.818). Tooth sensitivity scores were higher in the LED-assisted group ( median 3.5 [IQR 3–4]) compared to the diode laser-assisted group (median 2.5 [IQR 2–3]), but the difference did not reach statistical significance (<i>p</i> = 0.065). Patient-reported satisfaction was high in both groups.</p> Conclusions <p>Within the limitations of this exploratory pilot randomized clinical trial, both light-assisted in-office whitening protocols were associated with clinically perceptible immediate color changes. No statistically significant differences were detected between the investigated protocols; however, the limited sample size precludes definitive comparative conclusions. These findings should be considered preliminary and require confirmation in larger, adequately powered randomized clinical trials with longer follow-up periods.</p> Trial registration <p>This study was registered in the ISRCTN clinical trial registry (ISRCTN62124700) on 24.01.2026.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Comparative evaluation of LED- and diode laser-assisted in-office tooth whitening: a pilot randomized clinical study

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年7月18日

查看全文
  • Carmen Amititeloaie,
  • Tinela Panaite,
  • Carina Balcos,
  • Daniela Sulea,
  • Raluca Jipu,
  • Marcel Costuleanu

摘要

Background/objectives

Light-assisted in-office whitening procedures are widely used in clinical practice; however, comparative clinical data remain limited, particularly when evaluated using objective outcome measures. This exploratory pilot randomized clinical trial aimed to generate preliminary comparative data on two commercially available light-assisted in-office tooth whitening protocols used under their respective manufacturers’ clinical recommendations. The study also explored immediate color change, tooth sensitivity, and patient-reported satisfaction to inform the design of future adequately powered randomized clinical trials.

Materials and methods

Twelve healthy adult participants (18–45 years) presenting extrinsic or mixed-type tooth discoloration (baseline shade VITA A3 or darker) were randomly allocated into two parallel groups (n = 6 each). One group received whitening with a 35% hydrogen peroxide gel activated by a diode laser device, while the other group underwent whitening with a 25% hydrogen peroxide gel activated by an LED-based device. Tooth color was measured before and immediately after treatment using a digital spectrophotometer (VITA Easyshade V), and color differences (ΔE) were calculated based on CIE L*a*b* coordinates. Post-treatment tooth sensitivity was recorded using a Visual Analog Scale (VAS), and patient satisfaction was evaluated through a structured questionnaire. Statistical analysis was performed using the Mann–Whitney U test.

Results

Both light-assisted interventions resulted in clinically perceptible whitening outcomes (ΔE > 3.3). The LED-assisted group showed a slightly higher median ΔE value (9.71 [IQR 7.64–13.47]) compared with the laser-assisted group (10.87 [IQR 8.91–13.46]; however, the difference was not statistically significant ( Mann-Whitney U test, p = 0.818). Tooth sensitivity scores were higher in the LED-assisted group ( median 3.5 [IQR 3–4]) compared to the diode laser-assisted group (median 2.5 [IQR 2–3]), but the difference did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.065). Patient-reported satisfaction was high in both groups.

Conclusions

Within the limitations of this exploratory pilot randomized clinical trial, both light-assisted in-office whitening protocols were associated with clinically perceptible immediate color changes. No statistically significant differences were detected between the investigated protocols; however, the limited sample size precludes definitive comparative conclusions. These findings should be considered preliminary and require confirmation in larger, adequately powered randomized clinical trials with longer follow-up periods.

Trial registration

This study was registered in the ISRCTN clinical trial registry (ISRCTN62124700) on 24.01.2026.