Effect of acidity of in-office bleaching gels on tooth sensitivity and whitening: a two-center double-blind randomized clinical trial

2017 ◽  
Vol 21 (9) ◽  
pp. 2811-2818 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. D. Loguercio ◽  
F. Servat ◽  
R. Stanislawczuk ◽  
A. Mena-Serrano ◽  
M. Rezende ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Tooth Sensitivity ◽  
Bleaching Gels

Efficacy of and Effect on Tooth Sensitivity of In-office Bleaching Gel Concentrations: A Randomized Clinical Trial

2013 ◽  
Vol 38 (4) ◽  
pp. 386-393 ◽  
Author(s):  
A Reis ◽  
S Kossatz ◽  
GC Martins ◽  
AD Loguercio
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Hydrogen Peroxide ◽  
Side Effects ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial ◽  
Color Change ◽  
Absolute Risk ◽  
Tooth Sensitivity ◽  
Bleaching Gels ◽  
Shade Guide

SUMMARY With the aim of reducing the side effects of in-office bleaching agents, less-concentrated hydrogen peroxide (HP) gels have been released by manufacturers. We evaluated the tooth sensitivity (TS) and bleaching efficacy (BE) of two HP concentrations in this study. Gels containing 35% and 20% HP (HP35 and HP20, respectively) were applied on teeth of 60 caries-free patients. Color was recorded at baseline and one week after the first and second bleaching sessions using the Vita Classical shade guide. TS was recorded on a 0-4 scale. BE at each weekly recall was evaluated by Kruskall-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests (α=0.05). Absolute risk of TS and its intensity was evaluated by Fisher exact and Mann-Whitney tests, respectively (α=0.05). After two bleaching sessions, color change of approximately eight tabs was obtained with HP35; whereas, with HP20 it was six tabs (p<0.05). Only 26.7% (HP35) and 16.7% (HP20) of the participants reported TS, and no statistical differences were detected among them. Both in-office bleaching gels showed similar TS intensity, but the 35% HP agent produced faster bleaching.

Comparing Intradermal Sterile Water with Intravenous Morphine in Reducing Pain in Patients with Renal Colic: A Double-Blind Randomized Clinical Trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 76-82
Author(s):  
Javad Mozafari ◽  
Mohammadreza Maleki Verki ◽  
Fatemeh Tirandaz ◽  
Reza Mahjouri
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial ◽  
Renal Colic ◽  
Therapeutic Effects ◽  
Sterile Water ◽  
Morphine Group ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Water Group ◽  
Intravenous Morphine ◽  
Painful Area

Objective: The present study was conducted to investigate the effect of intradermal administration of sterile water compared to intravenous morphine on patients with renal colic. Methods: This double-blind, randomized clinical trial study was conducted in 2017 to compare the therapeutic effects of intradermal sterile water with those of intravenous morphine on patients with renal colic presenting to the emergency departments (ED) of Imam Khomeini and Golestan Hospitals in Ahvaz, Iran. The first group received 0.5 ml of intradermal sterile water, and the second group 0.1mg/kg of intravenous morphine plus 0.5 ml of intradermal sterile water in the most painful area or the center of the painful area in the flank. The pain severity was measured using a visual analogue scale (VAS), and the medication side-effects were recorded at the beginning of the study and minutes 15, 30,45 and 60. Result: A total of 94 patients were studied in two groups. The mean severity of pain was 2.97 ± 1.51 in the sterile water group and 2.34 ± 1.89 in the morphine group at minute 30 (P=0.042), 2.58 ± 1.43 in the sterile water group and 1 ± 1.23 in the morphine group at minute 45 (p<0.001), and 1.89 ± 1.7 in the sterile water group and 0.52 ± 0.79 in the morphine group at minute 60 (p<0.001). Conclusion: Morphine reduces pain faster and more effectively than intradermal sterile water; nevertheless, treatment with intradermal sterile water can be used as an appropriate surrogate or adjunct therapy for pain control, particularly in special patients or in case of medication scarcity.

Short‐term efficacy of a gel containing propolis extract, nanovitamin C and nanovitamin E on peri‐implant mucositis: A double‐blind, randomized, clinical trial

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
José González‐Serrano ◽  
Rosa María López‐Pintor ◽  
Julia Serrano ◽  
Jesús Torres ◽  
Gonzalo Hernández ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Propolis Extract ◽  
Term Efficacy
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document