The role of bleaching agents (e.g., hydrogen peroxide) in tooth bleaching is quite well-described in a few literature studies and considered as the option choice for those desiring brighter teeth, but alternative methods have emerged to fulfill the desire of patients in a faster, easier, and cheaper way. In this context, whitening over-the-counter (OTC) products are available in several vehicles, such as toothpaste, rinses, gums, paint-on varnishes, and strips, but their effectiveness in terms of bleaching is questioned. This review aimed to describe their mode of action, whitening effectiveness, and harmful effects associated with the indiscriminate use of these products. Dentifrices usually present a combination of abrasives that can induce damage to the tooth surface without evidence of promoting real bleaching. The same was found for rinses, which might present a low pH, with an erosive potential. Charcoal has been included in the composition of these products to improve their whitening effect but there is no evidence supporting it. Regarding strips, they present hydrogen peroxide in a variety of concentrations and are the only OTC products able to promote bleaching. Despite the vehicle, an indication for the use of these products should be made after a careful individual diagnosis of the etiology of the dental staining, considering that most of them seem to be effective only in removing extrinsic stains or preventing their formation over enamel. Also, their indiscriminate use might induce damage and deleterious effects over tooth tissues or gingival tissues. The dentist should be aware of the composition and mode of action of each individual product as they change according to the composition and the vehicle used to recommend the best mode of usage. Still, there is no sound evidence that any of the described OTC products promote a better bleaching effect than the products indicated for a professional.

This study investigated the effect of surfactants associated with sodium fluoride (NaF) on enamel erosion prevention, using an erosion-remineralization in vitro model. Sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS), polysorbate 20 (P20), and cocoamidopropyl betaine (CAPB) were tested, at concentrations of 1.0 and 1.5%, and associated or not with NaF (275 ppm). The control groups were distilled water and the NaF solution. Bovine enamel samples (n = 12) were prepared and submitted to a 5-day cycling model: acid challenge (0.3% citric acid, pH 2.6, 4×/day), human saliva (2 h, 4×/day), and the treatment solutions (2 min, 2×/day). The protective potential of the agents against initial erosion was assessed by microhardness and the surface loss by profilometry. Enamel surface wettability was determined by goniometry, protein adsorption was measured by spectroscopy (FTIR), and the KOH-soluble fluoride was quantified. Goniometry showed that SLS and CAPB increased enamel wettability. No differences were found among the surfactants regarding protein adsorption. Microhardness showed that SLS reduced NaF protection. P20 (1 and 1.5%) and CAPB 1.5% presented a protective effect, but lower than the NaF solution. Profilometry showed that CAPB protected enamel, but no agent associated with NaF promoted a higher protection than the NaF solution alone. KOH-soluble fluoride analysis showed that all surfactants reduced the fluoride adsorption on the enamel surface. Therefore, the surfactants tested (except for P20) changed the enamel surface energy. The SLS decreased the protective potential of NaF on initial erosion, but no tested agent interfered with the protective effect of NaF on enamel erosive wear.