The Impact of Tooth Whitening Procedures on the Quality of Life: a Topic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the goals to be achieved in cosmetic dentistry is the improvement of a patient's quality of life. Tooth whitening is a low-cost procedure that can be performed either in-office or by the patients themselves, at home. Several scientific papers have proven its effectiveness and other studies have been conducted to evaluate its psychosocial impact. Among the tools that have been used for this purpose are the questionnaires Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP), Oral Impact on Daily Performance (OIDP) and Psycho-social Impact of Dental Aesthetics (PIDAQ). The present study aims to review the literature regarding the impact tooth whitening has on a patients' quality of life. PubMed, Cochrane Central, Scopus and Embase databases were searched. 224 articles were identified, and 40 articles were selected, of which 13 were clinical studies. There seems to be a consensus in the literature researched associating tooth whitening to improvement in quality of life. On the other hand, some negative impacts have been reported, such as dental sensitivity and gingival irritation. However, these negative effects can be minimized or even avoided with the combination of correct diagnosis of the color change, ideal technique application, and the appropriate concentration of whitening agent as recommended by the dentist.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".