MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411000311 · doi:10.2341/24-061-c

Does Patient Age Impact In-Office Tooth Bleaching Outcomes? A Parallel Clinical Trial

2025· article· en· W4411000311 on OpenAlexaff
J. Vanderlei Martins, I. Araujo, J.J.F. Rabelo, Carlos José Soares, André Luis Faria‐e‐Silva, Alessandro Dourado Loguércio, HL Carlo, GR da Silva

Bibliographic record

VenueOperative Dentistry · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Erosion and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychosocialVisual analogue scaleMedicineAnalysis of varianceTooth SensitivityDentistryMann–Whitney U testPhysical therapyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To assess the influence of patient age on tooth sensitivity, bleaching effectiveness, and the self-perception and psychosocial impact of dental esthetics following in-office tooth bleaching with 35% hydrogen peroxide. METHODS: This parallel study categorized 56 subjects by age into early adulthood (18-25 years) and middle-aged (40-65 years) groups. The bleaching agent was applied in a single 45-minute session, spanning two bleaching sessions at a 1-week interval. Bleaching effectiveness assessment used upper incisors and canines. A shade guide (VITA Bleachedguide 3D-MASTER) and a portable spectrophotometer evaluated color changes. A visual analog scale and verbal rating scale recorded tooth sensitivity during and up to 48 hours after the bleaching procedure. The Psychosocial Impact of Dental Aesthetics Questionnaire measured the self-perception and psychosocial impact of the bleaching protocol. Student t-test, Fisher exact test, Mann-Whitney, multivariate analysis of variance, chi-square, two-way repeated measures analysis of variance, and the Wilcoxon test (α=0.05) verified the data. RESULTS: Early adulthood subjects demonstrated a significant increase (17%) in the risk of tooth sensitivity (p=0.038), and the highest pain levels occurred 1 hour after the bleaching session (p<0.01). Nonetheless, early adulthood subjects showed improved bleaching effects 30 days after the procedure when compared to the middle-aged subjects, even though the overall perception of the psychosocial impact of dental esthetics was more evident in middle-aged subjects. CONCLUSIONS: Patient age influenced in-office bleaching outcomes. Both age groups reported esthetic satisfaction, but early adulthood subjects (18-25 years) experienced a more substantial whitening effect, greater dentin sensitivity, and higher psychological impact. Conversely, middle-aged subjects (40-65 years) had a better overall perception of the psychosocial impact of dental esthetics.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.390 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOperative DentistrySame topicDental Erosion and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207