Present tooth-bleaching techniques are based upon hydrogen peroxide as the active agent. It is applied directly, or produced in a chemical reaction from sodium perborate or carbamide peroxide. More than 90% immediate success has been reported for intracoronal bleaching of non-vital teeth, and in the period of 1-8 years' observation time, from 10 to 40% of the initially successfully treated teeth needed re-treatment. Cervical root resorption is a possible consequence of internal bleaching and is more frequently observed in teeth treated with the thermo-catalytic procedure. When the external tooth-bleaching technique is used, the first subjective change in tooth color may be observed after 2-4 nights of tooth bleaching, and more than 90% satisfactory results have been reported. Tooth sensitivity is a common side-effect of external tooth bleaching observed in 15%-78% of the patients, but clinical studies addressing the risk of other adverse effects are lacking. Direct contact with hydrogen peroxide induced genotoxic effects in bacteria and cultured cells, whereas the effect was reduced or abolished in the presence of metabolizing enzymes. Several tumor-promoting studies, including the hamster cheek pouch model, indicated that hydrogen peroxide might act as a promoter. Multiple exposures of hydrogen peroxide have resulted in localized effects on the gastric mucosa, decreased food consumption, reduced weight gain, and blood chemistry changes in mice and rats. Our risk assessment revealed that a sufficient safety level was not reached in certain clinical situations of external tooth bleaching, such as bleaching one tooth arch with 35% carbamide peroxide, using several applications per day of 22% carbamide peroxide, and bleaching both arches simultaneously with 22% carbamide peroxide. The recommendation is to avoid using concentrations higher than 10% carbamide peroxide when one performs external bleaching. We advocate a selective use of external tooth bleaching based on high ethical standards and professional judgment.

The clinical diagnosis secondary caries was the main reason for replacement of all types of restorations studied.

Toxicity varied but RC Sealer and GuttaFlow were the least toxic new sealers.

No abstract

The ages of 6,761 restorations replaced in permanent teeth, 6,088 in adults > or =19 years of age and 673 in adolescents < or =18 years, were available for analyses. The results showed that the median age of amalgam restorations in adults was 11 years and that of resin-based composite restorations 8 years. This difference in longevity was significant (P = 0.000 l). The median age of failed conventional glass ionomer restorations in adults was 4 years and for resin-modified glass ionomer 2 years. In adolescents, the median longevity of failed amalgam restorations was 5 years and that of composite restorations 3 years, while both types of glass ionomers had a median longevity of 2 years. The data were subdivided based on clinician gender and practice setting. The results showed that the median age of amalgam and composite restorations replaced Its male clinicians was higher than that for female clinicians irrespective of clinical setting. The median age of amalgam and composite restorations replaced by salaried dentists was significantly lower than that by private practitioners. Minor differences were noted in longevity of restorations between male and female patients. The age of replaced restorations was shortest for the group of clinicians with the least clinical experience and highest for those that graduated > or = 30 years ago.