Objective: To compare at-home systems with reduced daily time of use (10% hydrogen peroxide [HP] gel with prefilled (PT) or customized trays (CT), and 10% carbamide peroxide [CP] gel), with the conventional nightguard vital bleaching (10% CP).Bleaching efficacy, adverse effects, and patient's satisfaction were evaluated. Methods: Sixty participants were randomly divided into treatments (14 days): Opalescence GO (OGO)-10%HP PT-30 min, White Class-10%HP CT-30 min, Opalescence PF-10%CP CT-2 h, and Opalescence PF-10%CP CT-8 h. Color difference (visual and spectrophotometer), tooth sensitivity (visual analogue scale), gingival condition (Löe index), enamel mineralization (laser fluorescence), and patients' satisfaction (questionnaire) were assessed. Statistical tests were applied (5%).Results: After 1 year, color difference was similar for the groups (p > 0.05). All groups showed similar sensitivity risk (p > 0.05). The intensity of sensitivity and gingival irritation was mild for all gels, but higher for OGO. Fluorescence after bleaching remained similar to those of sound enamel. All participants were satisfied with treatments.Conclusions: All systems produced similar bleaching efficacy, which was maintained after 1 year. Patients were satisfied with bleaching outcomes. Tooth sensitivity occurred in all groups, but with overall mild intensity. No relevant gingival irritation and enamel demineralization was observed.Clinical significance: Bleaching with 10% HP gels in prefilled and CTs represent efficacious alternative for tooth color change, with patients' acceptance similar to conventional 10% CP. Patients must be warned about the mild sensitivity and gingival irritation potential, mainly with PTs.

Clinical Relevance This study suggests that at-home bleaching systems are safe in relation to toxicity based on peroxide levels in saliva since the amount of peroxide potentially ingested is much lower than the estimated toxic dose.