Clinical Evaluation of a Chairside Whitening Lamp and Bleaching Efficacy

Objective:  To evaluate the effectiveness of a 25% hydrogen peroxide (HP) in-office tooth whitening system, with and without the use of a Chairside Whitening Lamp.

Methods:  Twenty subjects were treated with two separate 45-minute exposures of 25% HP (Zoom2). At the first appointment, half of the subjects received treatment of the 6 maxillary anterior teeth with light (ZoomAP) and the remainder of the participants received treatment of the same teeth without light. One week later, all subjects received treatment to the 6 mandibular anterior teeth according to the contra assignment of the first appointment. Visual and instrumental color matching were performed before bleaching and 7 days after. The visual color matching was conducted by three color normal evaluators using the Vitapan Classical (VC) and the Vita Bleachedguide 3D-Master (BG) to determine the best match. An intraoral spectrophotometer (Vita Easyshade) was used for the instrumental color measurements. Each subject had a custom positioning jig made for each arch to provide a repeatable area for placement of the instrument tip.  Data were analyzed with Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test at the 0.05 level.

Results:  Means and (sd) for visual and instrumental whitening-dependent color changes “With“ and “Without“ light are listed in the table;  SGU=shade guide units

Light	DE*	DL*	DC*	Dh°	SGU
With	6.0(2.6)	2.3(2.6)	-4.4(2.8)	3.2(2.6)	VC 6.1(3.1)
					BG 3.8(1.4)
Without	4.7(2.2)	1.8 (2.3)	-3.3(2.4)	2.9(3.0)	VC 4.5(3.0)
					BG 2.8(1.5)

Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test Statistics for DE*values for light comparisons was Z=–2.168, p<0.05, while visual finding for VC and BG were Z=-1.913, p=0.56 and Z=-2.646, p<0.01, respectively.

Conclusions:  Treatment with Zoom AP light showed significantly higher whitening dependent color changes compared to treatment without light for instrumental findings, p<0.05 and visual findings using the BG. Supported in part by Discus Dental.