Affiliations 

  • 1 Centre for Restorative Dentistry Studies, Faculty of Dentistry, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Sungai Buloh Campus, Jalan Hospital, Sungai Buloh, Selangor, Malaysia
  • 2 Medini Setia Tropika Dental Clinic, Johor Bahru, Johor, Malaysia
  • 3 Department of General Dental Practice and Oral and Maxillofacial Imaging, Faculty of Dentistry, University Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
J Conserv Dent, 2021 02 10;23(5):473-478.
PMID: 33911356 DOI: 10.4103/JCD.JCD_509_20

Abstract

Objective: The objective of this study was to compare the effects of light and laser activation of in-office tooth bleaching systems on enamel microhardness and surface roughness.

Materials and Methods: Twenty-five enamel slabs were divided into three treatment groups: light-activated bleaching, laser-activated bleaching, and control. The baseline data were recorded for enamel microhardness (Vickers microhardness [VMH]) and surface roughness (Roughness average, Ra). The specimens were cured for 10 min upon hydrogen peroxide application for the light-activated bleaching group and activated with a laser source, 8 cycles, 10 s per cycle for the laser-activated group. The changes in VMH and Ra at days 1, 7, and 28 were evaluated. Kruskal-Wallis, Friedman, Wilcoxon, and Mann-Whitney tests were used to analyze both VMH and Ra between the treatment groups at different time intervals.

Results: There were a significant reduction in VMH values and significant differences between days 1, 7, and 28 against the baseline in the light-activated bleaching group (P = 0.001). The Ra values revealed significant differences in both light- (P = 0.001) and laser-activated (P = 0.033) groups.

Conclusion: Light activation of a bleaching agent caused a reduction in enamel microhardness and an increase in surface roughness when compared to laser activation.

* Title and MeSH Headings from MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.

Similar publications