Skip to content

Efficacy of a Whitening Dentifrice on Tooth Discoloration

Safety, Acceptability and Efficacy of a Silica Dentifrice Containing Blue Pigment on Tooth Whitening: a Randomized Clinical Trial

Status
Completed
Phases
Phase 4
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT02741427
Enrollment
75
Registered
2016-04-18
Start date
2012-09-30
Completion date
2014-08-31
Last updated
2016-04-18

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Tooth Discoloration

Keywords

Tooth discoloration, Toothpaste, Tooth bleaching, Clinical trial

Brief summary

The purpose of this study was to compare the whitening effect of a toothpaste containing blue pigment with a conventional toothpaste and with at-home tooth bleaching; evaluate the subject's perception about tooth color improvement and; and evaluate the safety and acceptability of these products.

Detailed description

The study was approved by local Ethical Committee under protocol number CAAE: 035541412.7.0000.5188, and each volunteer signed an informed consent form prior to enrollment in the study. The sample size calculation was carried out based on a previous study. To detect the bleaching effect with a power of 80% and a one-tailed alpha error of 5%, a sample size of 20 subjects in each treatment group was necessary to detect a 20% difference between groups in shade change. A 20% addiction in subjects' number, taking into consideration potential loss or refusal, gave a total sample size of 75 subjects (25 in each group). The individuals were invited to participate in this clinical trial through advertisement exposed at the Federal University of Paraíba, Brazil. Basing on eligibility criteria, 75 volunteers were selected to the trial and randomized to one of the three groups of treatment: G1- brushing teeth with a conventional toothpaste; G2- brushing teeth with a silica whitening dentifrice containing blue pigment; and G3 - at-home tooth bleaching with 10% carbamide peroxide. The treatments will be detailed in another section. It was used a simple randomization to allocate the subjects, and a randomization table was prepared in the Excel Program by a member, not directly involved with the clinical part of the study. To mask the products used in the treatment groups, each toothpaste type was enveloped with an adhesive tape of a different color and the seal of the bleaching gel syringe was removed. The same examiner responsible for subject allocation did this procedure. Thus, testing with the toothpastes was double-blinded, where both evaluator and subject did not know which toothpaste was being used. The outcomes evaluated were: tooth shade, subjects' perception about tooth color appearance, and safety and acceptability of products tested, which were measured at baseline, 2-weeks, 3-weeks and 4-weeks of the beginning of treatments. For statistical analysis, data were checked for normal distribution using the Kolmogorov Smirnov test, and then it was applied the appropriated parametric or non-parametric tests. Differences were considered statistically significant when p \< 0.05.

Interventions

The participants should brush their teeth with conventional toothpaste for 90 seconds, twice per day, during two weeks.They should place a pea-size amount of toothpaste on their toothbrushes, use dental floss, but not mouth rinse.

The subjects should brush teeth with whitening toothpaste containing blue pigment for 90 seconds, twice per day, during two weeks.They should place a pea-size amount of toothpaste on toothbrushes, use dental floss, but not mouth rinse.

OTHER10% carbamide peroxide

The subjects should dispense the bleaching gel at night into the trays (maxillary and mandibular) and to insert them to cover at least the anterior teeth for a period of 4 h per day, over a 2-week period. Both arches should be bleached at the same time. During the period of bleaching, volunteers should receive the same toothpaste used by G1, in other words, without whitening agents, to standardize their oral hygiene regimen

Sponsors

Unilever R&D
CollaboratorINDUSTRY
Federal University of Paraíba
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
DOUBLE (Subject, Investigator)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
Yes

Inclusion criteria

* To have six maxillary anterior teeth with a mean shade of C1 or darker (Vitapan Classical, Vita Zahnfabrik, Bad Sackingen, Germany),

Exclusion criteria

* With active caries or periodontal disease, * Presenting non-vital anterior teeth, * Previous hypersensitivity, * Under orthodontic treatment, * With structural defect in the enamel, * Who had used tooth whiteners within the previous 3 years, * Smokers, * Pregnant or lactating

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Tooth shade changes from baseline until 4 weeks of the beginning of interventionBaseline, Immediately after first product application, 2 weeks and 4 weeks of the beginning of interventionsThe tooth shade evaluation was performed at each time frame using the digital spectrophotometer that provided tooth shade via two different methods: using the 16 shade tabs in the Vita shade guide (B1-C4); and the CIEL\*a\*b\* color system. The difference between the color coordinates was calculated as: ∆E\*= \[(∆L\*)2 + (∆a\*)2 + (∆b\*)2\]1/2, where ΔL\*, Δa\*, and Δb\* are the mathematical differences among CIE L\*, a\*, and b\* at the different time frames and baseline measurements.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Subjects' perception about improvement on tooth color2 weeks of the beginning of interventionsAfter two weeks of treatment, the subjects received a visual analog scale (VAS) ranging from 1 (no improvement in tooth appearance) to 7 (exceptional improvement in tooth appearance), in order to evaluate their satisfaction level with tooth appearance
Tooth sensitivity and gingival irritation evaluationDaily during three weeksEach subject should record tooth sensitivity or gingival irritation on a daily basis for 3 weeks (2 weeks of treatment and 1 week after treatment). They should use a standardized grading scale ranked as follows: 0, no sensitivity; 1, mild sensitivity; 2, moderate sensitivity; 3, considerable sensitivity; and 4, severe sensitivity
Acceptability of interventions2 weeks of the beginning of interventionsThe acceptability of the three products was assessed using a questionnaire containing six questions about the opinion of subjects regarding the treatment regimen adopted. The questions were scored from positive to negative answers, as follows: 1, agree; 2, neither agree nor disagree; and 3, disagree. The questions related to sufficient instruction, ease of use, comfort level, perceived taste, and overall satisfaction.

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026