Does a toothpaste containing blue covarine have any effect on bleached teeth? An in vitro, randomized and blinded study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to analyze the effect of bleaching toothpastes, both conventional and those containing the new whitening agent Blue Covarine, on teeth previously bleached by conventional techniques (in-office and at-home). Squared bovine enamel/dentin blocks (6.0 x 6.0 x 2.0 mm) were randomly distributed in 6 groups (n = 15), according to the technique used to bleach them (in-office: HP35%; at-home: PC10%) and the type of bleaching toothpaste (none: control; Blue Covarine containing: BC; and without Blue Covarine: NBC). Experimental groups denominated HP35%, HP35%BC and HP35%NBC received in-office tooth bleaching before toothbrushing, and groups PC10%, PC10%BC and PC10%NBC were subjected to at-home tooth bleaching prior to toothbrushing. After bleaching treatment, groups HP35%BC, PC10%BC, HP35%NBC and PC10%NBC underwent daily tooth brushing in a brushing machine for 3 minutes (150 strokes/min, with a load of 375 g). Tooth color alteration was measured by reflectance spectroscopy (Vita EasyShade, Vident, Brea, CA, USA) at: T0 (baseline) - after in-office or at-home bleaching treatment; T1 - immediately after tooth brushing; T2 - 7 days and T3 - 14 days after tooth brushing. Data was analyzed by repeated measures mixed ANOVA and the Bonferroni post hoc test, with a significance level of 5%. Statistically significant differences were found between different experimental groups, evaluation times and for the interaction between them (p < 0.001). Tooth brushing using either bleaching toothpaste (conventional or with Blue Covarine) showed no color alteration on teeth previously bleached by in-office and at-home tooth bleaching. The use of bleaching toothpastes on previously bleached teeth did not produce a color alteration.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".