↓ Skip to main content

Efficacy and safety of over-the-counter whitening strips as compared to home-whitening with 10 % carbamide peroxide gel—systematic review of RCTs and metanalysis

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Oral Investigations, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#20 of 652)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 Mendeley
Title
Efficacy and safety of over-the-counter whitening strips as compared to home-whitening with 10 % carbamide peroxide gel—systematic review of RCTs and metanalysis
Published in
Clinical Oral Investigations, August 2015
DOI 10.1007/s00784-015-1547-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carla Regina Serraglio, Luana Zanella, Karine Battestin Dalla-Vecchia, Sinval Adalberto Rodrigues-Junior

Abstract

The study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of over-the-counter whitestrips with the American Dental Association (ADA)-recommended home-whitening using the 10 % carbamide peroxide gel. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the clinical efficacy and safety of the whitestrips with the 10 % carbamide peroxide (10 % CP) gel applied on tray for tooth whitening in adults were searched at PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases and selected up to October 2014. Efficacy of the whitening techniques was assessed through ∆E, ∆L, and ∆b parameters, while side effects were analyzed as dichotomous variables. Data was extracted independently by two reviewers. Metanalysis was performed using random- and fixed-effect models (RevMan 5.3). Eight studies were included in the metanalysis. The metanalysis revealed no significant difference between the intervention groups for tooth-whitening efficacy measured as ΔE (mean difference [MD]-0.53; 95 % CI [-1.72;0.66]; Z = 0.88; p = 0.38) and ΔL (MD-0.22; 95 % CI [-0.81;0.36]; z = 0.75; p = 0.45); reduction of yellowing was higher with the whitestrips (MD-0.47; 95 % CI [-0.89; -0.06]; Z = 2.25; p = 0.02). Tooth sensitivity (risk ratio [RR] 1.17; 95 % CI [0.81-1.69]; Z = 0.81; p = 0.42) and gingival sensitivity (RR 0.76; 95 % CI [0.53-1.10]; Z = 1.44; p = 0.15) were similar, regardless of the whitening method used. The observed gingival irritation was higher when the 10 % CP gel was applied on tray (RR 0.43; 95 % CI [0.20-0.93]; Z = 2.14; p = 0.03). The quality of evidence generated was rated very low for all outcomes. There is no sound evidence to support the use of the whitening strips in detriment of the ADA-recommended technique based on the 10 % carbamide peroxide gel applied on tray. To the moment, there is no sound evidence in dental literature to suggest that the ADA-recommended whitening technique based on 10 % carbamide peroxide gel could be substituted by the whitening strips. The existing studies, with their limitations, revealed similar tooth whitening and tooth and gingival sensitivity for both whitening techniques.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Uruguay 1 3%
Unknown 36 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 24%
Student > Postgraduate 7 19%
Unspecified 5 14%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 8%
Other 9 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 59%
Unspecified 10 27%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 11%
Design 1 3%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 March 2018.
All research outputs
#1,116,234
of 12,622,988 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Oral Investigations
#20
of 652 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,165
of 234,822 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Oral Investigations
#1
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,622,988 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 652 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 234,822 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.