Single site meta-analysis of 6% hydrogen peroxide whitening strip effectiveness and safety over 2 weeks

The Procter & Gamble Company, Mason, OH 45040-8006, USA.
Journal of dentistry (Impact Factor: 2.75). 03/2009; 37(5):360-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2009.01.005
Source: PubMed


This research evaluated efficacy and safety of 6% hydrogen peroxide whitening strips from a clinical trials database accumulated over a multi-year period at a single site.
The inclusive meta-analysis involved seven different randomized clinical trials at one dental school. Each study used 6% hydrogen peroxide whitening strips twice daily for 30min over a 2-week period. Common efficacy (digital images) and safety (examination and interview) methods were used across studies. Pooled subject-level data were analyzed using a general linear mixed model to determine overall response and effects of treatment duration on whitening.
The 148 treated subjects were 18-71 years old, with b* (yellowness) ranging from 12 to 22, and L* (lightness) ranging from 69 to 80. After 1-week strip use, the adjusted mean (S.E.) for Deltab* was -1.6 (0.08), differing significantly from baseline (p<0.0001). After 2 weeks, the adjusted mean (S.E.) for Deltab* was -2.3 (0.07), differing significantly from Week 1 (p<0.0001). The estimated correlation between Weeks 1 and 2 for Deltab* was 0.74. Study-to-study variation contributed less than 2% of Deltab* variability. Results were similar for DeltaL*, with Weeks 1 and 2 estimated means (S.E.) of 1.5 (0.13) and 2.0 (0.12). Occurrence of oral irritation (22%) and tooth sensitivity (20%) did not adversely affect whitening. Other side effects were unremarkable, and only 1 subject (0.7%) discontinued treatment early due to an adverse event.
The meta-analysis of multiple studies conducted at a single clinical site over several years establishes consistent, effective and safe vital bleaching with 6% hydrogen peroxide whitening strips.

18 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial was conducted to evaluate efficacy and safety of 6% hydrogen peroxide whitening strip used twice daily over an extended, 6-week period. After informed consent, 40 eligible adults were randomly assigned to 6% hydrogen peroxide whitening strips (Crest Whitestrips, The Procter & Gamble Company, USA) or placebo strips without peroxide. Treatment was twice daily for 30min, and response was evaluated biweekly after initial (Week 2) and extended (Weeks 4 and 6) use. Tooth color was measured under standardized lighting conditions using digital image analysis, and safety was assessed from clinical examination and interview. Whitening was measured using data derived from digital images taken at baseline compared to post-treatment, with outcomes reported using the CIELAB color notation system. Analysis of variance and covariance were used to assess initial response, and repeated measures regression analysis was used to model color change during sustained use. Forty subjects (25-58 years old) started the study. At baseline, L* ranged from 68.0 to 76.8, a* ranged from 8.0 to 11.8, and b* ranged from 16.4 to 23.1. Groups differed significantly (p<0.001) on all color parameters at Week 2 and thereafter, favoring the 6% hydrogen peroxide strips. Week 2 adjusted means+/-SE were -2.1+/-0.2 for Deltab* and 1.9+/-0.2 for DeltaL* for the peroxide group compared to -0.3+/-0.2 for Deltab* and 0.4+/-0.2 for the placebo group. With sustained use (Weeks 2-6), the slope for the peroxide strip was estimated as -0.3 for Deltab* and +0.2 for DeltaL* per week, with both slopes differing significantly from zero (p<0.0001), while slopes for the placebo strip were not significant (p=0.22) and nearly zero. Treatment was generally well tolerated, with adverse events confined to symptoms only. Twice-daily use of 6% hydrogen peroxide whitening strips resulted in teeth becoming lighter and less yellow versus baseline and placebo during initial 2-week use, with no evidence of placebo response during sustained (Weeks 2-6) use.
    No preview · Article · Dec 2009 · Journal of dentistry
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Evidence-based medicine (EBM) employs the best available evidence in a particular time and context to solve specific clinical problems. This method of practicing medicine has been adopted by most of the disciplines involved in medical training; however, morphology appears to remain beyond this paradigm. The first step in evidence-based practice based on morphology is to recognize the types of studies being conducted with regard to morphology, followed by the assessment of the level of evidence that they provide, which is the purpose of this study. We designed a bibliometric study, in which journals in the Master Journal List of Thomson Reuters, selected using the keywords "Morphology" or "Anatomy," available between 2007 and 2008, with access to full text in electronic version, whose languages were English and Spanish, and which only considered studies on human morphology, were included. We analyzed a total of 790 articles, of which 93.1% were descriptive, 6.5% were analytical, and 0.4% were experimental design types. According to the stage of the study, most of the articles (94.8%) accounted for prevalence and differential diagnosis studies, concentrating on numerous designs such cross-section, which gave complex evidence (1c). The use of these methodologies for the systematic morphological knowledge allowed us to widen our research to generate clinically useful recommendations or merely a teaching approach based on the systematic morphological knowledge available
    Full-text · Article · Jun 2010
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Evidence-based assessment plays an obvious, growing, and critical role in directly informing clinical decisions in dentistry. The inputs are complex from diverse sources, and outcomes can appreciably influence the research and development process. Emerging trends may indicate the need for assessment of even more complex data. As exemplified by whitening strips development, inclusive, consistent, and atypical evidence may be considered for informed decision making. In addition to the direct applications, such assessment may indirectly support decision making by professional associations, government authorities, and other health care organizations that influence clinical practice behaviors.
    No preview · Article · Mar 2010 · The journal of evidence-based dental practice
Show more