evidencegaps
Search

What do systematic reviews say?

Refine by population, intervention, comparison or outcome
More filters
Evidence found and GRADE certainty

3 questions · 3 findings · 1 reviews · Oral Health

Sort:Best matchNewestHighest certaintyDownload CSV
No studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 3 · 100%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

Laser/light-activated bleaching vs Conventional (non-laser) bleaching with hydrogen or carbamide peroxide

Enamel microhardness / caries susceptibility · Permanent teeth / enamel specimens (in vitro)

Low-quality in vitro evidence found no support for adding lasers to in-office bleaching; laser-activated bleaching did not appear to affect enamel microhardness or caries risk versus conventional bleaching (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Bleaching vs No bleaching (untreated control)

Caries susceptibility, enamel demineralisation, erosion, or microhardness · Permanent teeth or extracted human teeth with artificial lesions

The laboratory studies did not find increased susceptibility to caries or enamel demineralisation, but no firm conclusions can be drawn because of high risk of bias.

1 finding from 1 review

Tooth bleaching (carbamide or hydrogen peroxide; home and/or in-office) vs No bleaching (untreated or pH-cycling control)

Caries susceptibility, enamel demineralisation, erosion, or microhardness · Permanent teeth / enamel specimens (in vitro)

Low-quality in vitro evidence suggests that bleaching of permanent teeth does not increase susceptibility to caries, demineralisation or erosion (ungraded); the clinical question could not be answered because only in vitro studies were available.

1 finding from 1 review