{"title":"家庭漂白与办公室漂白:最新的系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"J L de Geus, Acr Martins, A Reis, M Rezende","doi":"10.2341/24-078-LIT","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the efficacy, risk, and intensity of tooth sensitivity of at-home and in-office bleaching. This is an update of a systematic review first published in 2016, adding new evidence. Methods and Materials: A comprehensive search was performed in seven databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library. Additionally, other sources were screened manually for any additional trials, and the reference lists and citation lists of included trials and relevant reviews were manually searched. We included randomized clinical trials that compared the risk intensity of tooth sensitivity or bleaching efficacy of in-office and at-home treatments in adult patients. After data extraction and risk of bias assessment, mean differences or relative risks and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals were calculated and assessed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 910 articles were identified via databases and registers. After title and abstract screening, 11 studies remained. In addition, another 11 records were identified through websites, organizations, and citation searches. Including the previous studies from the earlier systematic review, 26 studies remained for qualitative analyses and 23 for meta-analysis. In 2024, six studies were added, totaling 32 studies included for qualitative analysis. The intensity of tooth sensitivity was significantly lower for at-home bleaching (standardized mean difference [SMD] -0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.53 to -0.03; p=0.04). There was no significant difference in the risk of tooth sensitivity (relative risk [RR] 0.82; 95% CI 0.61 to 1.10; p=0.19) or bleaching efficacy in ΔSGU (SMD 0.04; 95% CI -0.17 to 0.25; p=0.68). The color change in ΔE was significantly higher for at-home bleaching (SMD 0.49; 95% CI 0.14 to 0.84; p=0.006).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although there was a difference in the intensity of tooth sensitivity and color change in ΔE favoring at-home bleaching, the quality of the evidence was considered low. Neither the risk of tooth sensitivity nor the color change in shade guide units (ΔSGU) was influenced by the bleaching technique.</p>","PeriodicalId":19502,"journal":{"name":"Operative dentistry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"At-home vs In-office Bleaching: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"J L de Geus, Acr Martins, A Reis, M Rezende\",\"doi\":\"10.2341/24-078-LIT\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the efficacy, risk, and intensity of tooth sensitivity of at-home and in-office bleaching. This is an update of a systematic review first published in 2016, adding new evidence. Methods and Materials: A comprehensive search was performed in seven databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library. Additionally, other sources were screened manually for any additional trials, and the reference lists and citation lists of included trials and relevant reviews were manually searched. We included randomized clinical trials that compared the risk intensity of tooth sensitivity or bleaching efficacy of in-office and at-home treatments in adult patients. After data extraction and risk of bias assessment, mean differences or relative risks and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals were calculated and assessed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 910 articles were identified via databases and registers. After title and abstract screening, 11 studies remained. In addition, another 11 records were identified through websites, organizations, and citation searches. Including the previous studies from the earlier systematic review, 26 studies remained for qualitative analyses and 23 for meta-analysis. In 2024, six studies were added, totaling 32 studies included for qualitative analysis. The intensity of tooth sensitivity was significantly lower for at-home bleaching (standardized mean difference [SMD] -0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.53 to -0.03; p=0.04). There was no significant difference in the risk of tooth sensitivity (relative risk [RR] 0.82; 95% CI 0.61 to 1.10; p=0.19) or bleaching efficacy in ΔSGU (SMD 0.04; 95% CI -0.17 to 0.25; p=0.68). The color change in ΔE was significantly higher for at-home bleaching (SMD 0.49; 95% CI 0.14 to 0.84; p=0.006).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although there was a difference in the intensity of tooth sensitivity and color change in ΔE favoring at-home bleaching, the quality of the evidence was considered low. Neither the risk of tooth sensitivity nor the color change in shade guide units (ΔSGU) was influenced by the bleaching technique.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19502,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Operative dentistry\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Operative dentistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2341/24-078-LIT\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Operative dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2341/24-078-LIT","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:通过系统回顾和荟萃分析,比较家庭漂白和办公室漂白的效果、风险和牙齿敏感程度。这是对2016年首次发表的系统综述的更新,增加了新的证据。方法与材料:在MEDLINE、EMBASE、Cochrane Library等7个数据库中进行全面检索。此外,手动筛选其他来源的任何额外试验,并手动检索纳入试验和相关综述的参考文献列表和引文列表。我们纳入了随机临床试验,比较了成年患者在办公室和在家治疗时牙齿敏感的风险强度或漂白效果。在数据提取和偏倚风险评估后,计算平均差异或相对风险及相应的95%置信区间,并采用分级推荐评估、发展和评估(GRADE)方法进行评估。结果:通过数据库和注册表共鉴定出910篇文献。经过题目和摘要筛选,剩下11项研究。此外,通过网站、组织和引文搜索确定了另外11条记录。包括之前系统综述的研究,有26项研究用于定性分析,23项用于荟萃分析。2024年新增6项研究,共纳入32项研究进行定性分析。家庭漂白的牙齿敏感强度明显较低(标准化平均差[SMD] -0.78;95%置信区间[CI] -1.53 ~ -0.03;p = 0.04)。两组患者牙齿敏感风险差异无统计学意义(相对危险度[RR] 0.82;95% CI 0.61 ~ 1.10;p=0.19)或ΔSGU漂白效果(SMD = 0.04;95% CI -0.17 ~ 0.25;p = 0.68)。在家漂白时,ΔE的颜色变化明显更高(SMD 0.49;95% CI 0.14 ~ 0.84;p = 0.006)。结论:虽然ΔE患者在牙齿敏感程度和牙齿颜色变化方面存在差异,但证据质量较低。牙齿敏感的风险和色度引导单元(ΔSGU)的颜色变化都没有受到漂白技术的影响。
At-home vs In-office Bleaching: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Objective: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the efficacy, risk, and intensity of tooth sensitivity of at-home and in-office bleaching. This is an update of a systematic review first published in 2016, adding new evidence. Methods and Materials: A comprehensive search was performed in seven databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library. Additionally, other sources were screened manually for any additional trials, and the reference lists and citation lists of included trials and relevant reviews were manually searched. We included randomized clinical trials that compared the risk intensity of tooth sensitivity or bleaching efficacy of in-office and at-home treatments in adult patients. After data extraction and risk of bias assessment, mean differences or relative risks and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals were calculated and assessed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.
Results: A total of 910 articles were identified via databases and registers. After title and abstract screening, 11 studies remained. In addition, another 11 records were identified through websites, organizations, and citation searches. Including the previous studies from the earlier systematic review, 26 studies remained for qualitative analyses and 23 for meta-analysis. In 2024, six studies were added, totaling 32 studies included for qualitative analysis. The intensity of tooth sensitivity was significantly lower for at-home bleaching (standardized mean difference [SMD] -0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.53 to -0.03; p=0.04). There was no significant difference in the risk of tooth sensitivity (relative risk [RR] 0.82; 95% CI 0.61 to 1.10; p=0.19) or bleaching efficacy in ΔSGU (SMD 0.04; 95% CI -0.17 to 0.25; p=0.68). The color change in ΔE was significantly higher for at-home bleaching (SMD 0.49; 95% CI 0.14 to 0.84; p=0.006).
Conclusion: Although there was a difference in the intensity of tooth sensitivity and color change in ΔE favoring at-home bleaching, the quality of the evidence was considered low. Neither the risk of tooth sensitivity nor the color change in shade guide units (ΔSGU) was influenced by the bleaching technique.
期刊介绍:
Operative Dentistry is a refereed, international journal published bi-monthly and distributed to subscribers in over 50 countries. In 2012, we printed 84 articles (672 pages). Papers were submitted by authors from 45 countries, in the categories of Clinical Research, Laboratory Research, Clinical Techniques/Case Presentations and Invited Papers, as well as Editorials and Abstracts.
One of the strong points of our journal is that our current publication time for accepted manuscripts is 4 to 6 months from the date of submission. Clinical Techniques/Case Presentations have a very quick turnaround time, which allows for very rapid publication of clinical based concepts. We also provide color for those papers that would benefit from its use.
The journal does not accept any advertising but you will find postings for faculty positions. Additionally, the journal also does not rent, sell or otherwise allow its subscriber list to be used by any other entity