The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of four whitening modalities on surface enamel as assessed with microhardness tester, profilometer, and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Whitening was performed according to manufacturer’s directions for over-the-counter (OTC), dentist dispensed for home use (HW) and in-office (OW) whitening. Do-it-yourself (DIY) whitening consisted of a strawberry and baking soda mix. Additionally, negative and positive controls were used. A total of 120 enamel specimens were used for microhardness testing at baseline and post-whitening. Following microhardness testing specimens were prepared for SEM observations. A total of 120 enamel specimens were used for surface roughness testing at baseline and post-whitening (n = 20 per group). Rank-based Analysis of Covariance was performed to compare microhardness and surface roughness changes. Tests of hypotheses were two-sided with α = 0.05. There was a significant difference in Knoop hardness changes (ΔKHN) among the groups (Kruskal–Wallis test, p < 0.0001). Significant hardness reduction was observed in the positive control and DIY group (p < 0.0001). Mean surface roughness changes (ΔRa) were significantly different among the groups (Kruskal–Wallis test, p < 0.0001). Surface roughness increased in the OTC group (p = 0.03) and in the positive control (p < 0.0001). The four whitening modalities—DIY, OTC, HW and OW induced minimal surface morphology changes when observed with SEM. It can be concluded that none of the four whitening modalities adversely affected enamel surface morphology. However, caution should be advised when using a DIY regimen as it may affect enamel microhardness and an OTC product as it has the potential to increase surface roughness.
Tooth whitening Enamel Microhardness Surface roughness Scanning electron microscope
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access
The authors would like to thank Ultradent Products Inc and Philips Oral Healthcare for kindly providing the bleaching materials used in this study.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Kwon SR, Meharry M, Oyoyo U, Li Y. Efficacy of various tooth whitening modalities as measured with different shade assessment tools: an in vitro study. J Dent Res. 2013;92 (Spec Iss A) #29.Google Scholar
Da Costa JB, McPharlin R, Paravina RD, Ferracane JL. Comparison of at-home and in-office tooth whitening using a novel shade guide. Oper Dent. 2010;35:381–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Auschill TM, Hellwig E, Schmidale S, Sculean A, Arweiler NB. Efficacy, side-effects and patients’ acceptance of different bleaching techniques (OTC, in-office, at-home). Oper Dent. 2005;30:156–63.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Bizhang M, Chun Y-HP, Damerau K, Singh P, Raab WH-M, Zimmer S. Comparative clinical study of the effectiveness of three different bleaching methods. Oper Dent. 2009;34:635–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Kwon SR, Wang J, Oyoyo U, Li Y. Evaluation of bleaching efficacy and erosion potential of four different over-the-counter bleaching products. Am J Dent. 2013;26:356–60.PubMedGoogle Scholar
American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs. Tooth whitening/bleaching: treatment considerations for dentists and their patients. Chicago: ADA; 2009.Google Scholar
Sun L, Liang S, Wang YSZ, Jiang T, Wang Y. Surface alteration of human tooth enamel subjected to acidic and neutral 30% hydrogen peroxide. J Dent. 2011;39:686–92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Attin T, Schmidlin PR, Wegehaupt F, Wiegand A. Influence of study design on the impact of whitening agents on dental enamel microhardness: a review. Dent Mater. 2009;25:143–57.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
International Organization for Standardization. ISO 28399 Dentistry––products for external tooth bleaching. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization; 2011.Google Scholar
American Dental Association. ANSI/ADA Specification No. 41 for recommended standard practices for biological evaluation of dental materials. Chicago: ADA, 2005.Google Scholar
Mielczarek A, Klukowska A, Ganowicz M, Kwiatkowska A, Kwasny M. The effect of strip, tray and office bleaching systems on enamel surfaces in vitro. Dent Mater. 2008;24:1495–500.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Pinto CF, de Oliveira R, Cavalli V, Giannini M. Peroxide bleaching agent effects on enamel surface microhardness, roughness and morphology. Braz Oral Res. 2004;18:306–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Moraes RR, Marimon JLM, Schneider LFJ, Correr Sobrinho L, Camacho GB, Bueno M. Carbamide peroxide bleaching agents: effects on surface roughness of enamel, composite and porcelain. Clin Oral Investig. 2006;10:23–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Azrak B, Callaway A, Kurth P, Willerhausen B. Influence of bleaching agents on surface roughness on surface roughness of sound or eroded dental enamel specimens. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2010;22:391–401.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Faraoni-Romano JJ, Turssi CP, Serra MC. Concentration-dependent effect of bleaching agents on microhardness and roughness of enamel and dentin. Am J Dent. 2007;20:31–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Mondelli RFL, De Azevedo JFDG, Francisconi PAS, Ishikiriama SK, Mondelli J. Wear and surface roughness of bovine enamel submitted to bleaching. Eur J Esthet Dent. 2009;4:396–403.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Aykut-Yetkiner A, Wiegand A, Bollhader A, Becker K, Attin T. Effect of acidic solution viscosity on enamel erosion. J Dent Res. 2013;92:289–94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
West NX, Hughes JA, Addy M. The effect of pH on erosion of dentin and enamel by dietary acids in vitro. J Oral Rehabil. 2001;28:860–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar