Objective: This study’s aim was to quantify the hydrogen peroxide (HP) penetration into the pulp chamber of teeth submitted to different protocols of bleaching. Material and Methods: Ninety premolars were randomly divided into nine groups according to the bleaching agent protocol (n = 10): control (no bleaching), carbamide peroxide 10% [10% CP], carbamide peroxide 16% [16% CP], carbamide peroxide 22% [22% CP], hydrogen peroxide 4% [4% HP], hydrogen peroxide 6% [6% HP], hydrogen peroxide 7.5% [7.5% HP], hydrogen peroxide 10% [10% HP] and hydrogen peroxide 35% [35% HP]. The penetration of HP was measured via spectrophotometric analysis of the acetate buffer solution from the pulp chamber. The absorbance of the resulting solution was determined in a spectrophotometer and converted into equivalent concentration of HP (?g/ mL). To analyze the concentration of HP, the titration of bleaching agents with potassium permanganate was used. Data were subjected to ANOVA and Tukey’s test for pairwise comparison (? = 0.05). Results: Higher concentration of HP in the pulp chamber was found in the HP 35% group (p < 0.0001). No significant difference between at-home protocols were observed (p = 0.64). Titration values showed that the concentration of the products was similar to that claimed by the manufacturer. Conclusion: It follows that the amount of HP that reaches the pulp chamber is not proportional to the concentration of whitening gels, but depends on the application time recommended by the manufacturers.KEYWORDSAt-home bleaching; Dental enamel permeability; Inoffice bleaching; Tooth bleaching.

Objectives This randomized, split-mouth, single-blinded trial assessed whether the use of reservoirs in at-home bleaching trays is equivalent to non-reservoir trays. Our choice of an equivalence trial was based on the expectation that a non-reservoir tray is sufficient to produce a color change. Secondary outcomes such as tooth sensitivity (TS) and gingival irritation (GI) were also assessed. Methodology Forty-six patients were selected with canines shade A2 or darker. In half of the patient’s arch, bleaching trays were made with reservoirs and the other half, without reservoirs. At-home bleaching was performed with carbamide peroxide (CP) 10% (3 h daily; 21 days). Color change was evaluated with a digital spectrophotometer (ΔE, ΔE00, and Whiteness Index) and shade guide units (ΔSGU) at baseline, during and one-month post-bleaching. TS and GI were assessed with a numeric scale (NRS) and a visual analog scale (VAS). Results After one month, the equivalence of reservoir and non-reservoir groups were observed in all color instruments (p>0.05). Fifteen and sixteen patients presented pain (absolute risk: 33% and 35%, 95%, confidence interval (CI) 21-46% and 23-49%) in the reservoir and non-reservoir side, respectively. The odds ratio for pain was 0.8 (95%CI 0.2-3.0) and the p-value was non-significant (p=1.0). TS intensity was similar between both groups in any of the pain scales (p>0.05). No difference in the GI was observed (p>0.05). Conclusions The protocol with reservoirs is equivalent in color change to the non-reservoir, although no superiority of the latter was observed in terms of reduced TS and GI with at-home 10% carbamide peroxide bleaching. Clinical Relevance The presence of reservoirs in a bleaching tray did not improve color change or affect tooth sensitivity and gingival irritation.