Safety Issues Of Tooth Whitening Using Peroxide-Based Materials | Journal Dental
The use of hydrogen peroxide (H2
O2
) for
tooth whitening can be traced back more
than a century.1
The procedure was primarily
practised only in dental practices
until 1989 when Haywood and Heymann
first introduced at-home tooth whitening.2
Due to its effectiveness and the increasing
quest for whiter teeth by the general
population, tooth bleaching has become a
popular aesthetic dental procedure and an
integrated part of dental practice.
The terms of tooth whitening and tooth
bleaching have been used interchangeably
both in the literature and clinical practice.
The International Organization for
Standardization (ISO) defines tooth bleaching
as ‘removal of intrinsic or acquired
discolorations of natural teeth through the
use of chemicals, sometimes in combination
with the application of auxiliary means’.3
It is an oxidative process that alters the
light absorbing or light reflecting nature
of the tooth structure, increasing its perception
of whiteness. On the other hand,
whitening is the process resulting in the
material becoming similar in colour to a
preferred or standard white regardless of the
means used. In dental practice, mechanical
approaches, such as polishing and
brushing with abrasive-based prophylactic
pastes and toothpastes, are used to remove
extrinsic tooth surface stains subsequently
providing a whitening effect. There are
few safety concerns with these mechanical
whitening materials, and this paper will
review and discuss only tooth whitening
using peroxide-based agents, therefore, the
term bleaching instead of whitening is used
throughout the remainder of the text.
ACTIVE INGREDIENTS
AND APPLICATION MODALITIES
Current tooth bleaching materials almost
exclusively use carbamide peroxide and
H2
O2
as active ingredients in tooth bleaching
regardless of in-office or at-home uses.4–6
Chemically, carbamide peroxide is composed
of approximately 3.5 parts of H2
O2
and 6.5
parts of urea, so that a bleaching gel of 10% carbamide peroxide provides around 3.5%
H2
O2
. Therefore, the true active ingredient
for tooth bleaching is H2
O2
. Typically, H2
O2
concentrations used for in-office bleaching
range from 25% to 40%, while at-home formulations
contain 3 to 9% H2
O2
; however,
there has been a trend in recent years to elevate
the H2
O2
concentration in products for
at-home bleaching, and those of up to 15%
H2
O2
have now become available directly to
consumers for home use.
The at-home tooth bleaching regimen
was originally intended to be part of a
complete dental procedure. The dentist
conducts dental examinations to ensure no
contraindications for bleaching, prescribes
a treatment regimen, and monitors the
progress for appropriate whitening effects
without significant side effects.6,7 However,
the advantages of at-home bleaching,
including ease of use, low cost, convenience
and whitening efficacy, quickly promoted
the growth of over-the-counter
(OTC) bleaching products for home use.
Chlorine dioxide tooth
whitening agents
Nowadays there are a wide variety of
at-home bleaching products available to consumers in various forms including custom
or preformed trays, brushes, or strips.
Recent years have also shown an increase
in procedures promising in-office results
performed in non-dental settings such as
mall kiosks, spas and cruise ships.6,8 While
many OTC products have demonstrated
safety and efficacy for consumers, other
unregulated and unresearched materials
and methods may potentially cause irreversible
damage if used on a long-term
basis. The products in cruise ships and
beauty spas commonly use chlorine dioxide
as the active ingredient positioned as
a ‘safer’ alternative to hydrogen peroxide
while avoiding local and state legislations
regarding the use of hydrogen peroxide. In
truth, these chlorine dioxide products are
more harmful, having little if any safety
studies and commonly coming with a pH
of 2 to 3. The chlorine dioxide at 0.5%
concentration applied to the teeth for 20
minutes in a chair side procedure with
gingival protection applied by a beauty
therapist has been shown to strip the
enamel off the teeth (Fig. 1), reduce the
enamel lustre (Fig. 2) and cause sensitivity.
In the case depicted in Figure 1 the
material used was chlorine dioxide and
this was applied for 20 minutes onto the
surface of the anterior teeth. The patient
was then given a gel to take home and
paint onto the teeth. Figure 1 shows how
the enamel surface of the anterior teeth
appears rough and has lost the appearance
of lustre compared to that of the premolars
and molars, which did not receive the
treatment and appear normal. The left side
of the teeth (not shown) showed the same
appearance. The teeth became sensitive to
cold, felt rough to the touch and easily
picked up stain.
As a result of chlorine dioxide use, teeth
are more prone to re-staining, develop a
rough surface and become extremely sensitive.
Further, the reduced enamel lustre
appears irreversible, and there appears to
lack effective measures to resolve the damage
other than costly restorative means.9
MECHANISMS OF
TOOTH BLEACHING
Fig. 1 Right side of maxillary teeth of a patient who had teeth whitened on a cruise using
chlorine dioxide based materials
Fig. 2 Right maxillary central incisor showing
the rough surface texture of the tooth
following the application of the chlorine dioxide
While tooth bleaching has become popular
and millions of people have received
the treatment during the last two decades,
the mechanisms of tooth bleaching
remain yet to be fully understood.6,10 The generally accepted mechanism involved
in tooth bleaching is similar to that in
textile and paper bleaching: free radicals,
produced by H2
O2
, interact with pigment
molecules to produce a whitening effect.
It is hypothesised that H2
O2
in bleaching
gel produces free radicals while diffusing
through enamel and dentine, breaking
double bonds of pigment molecules and
changing the pigment molecule configuration
and/or size. Such changes alter the
optical properties of tooth structure, creating
the perception of a whiter tooth colour.
This theory is also plausible in explaining
the commonly observed shade rebounding
shortly after the bleaching treatment,
probably due to the reformation of the
double bonds.
Besides the bleaching effect by free
radicals, it is possible that there are nonbleaching
effects during the bleaching
process that help enhance the whitening
effect, including the cleansing of the
tooth surface. Enamel dehydration during
the bleaching process may also result in a
temporary whitening effect since enamel
dehydration alone is capable of producing
a significant, visible tooth shade reduction.11
Such whitening effect dissipates
upon the rehydration of the enamel.
Bleaching efficacy can be influenced by
patient factors (for example, age, gender
and initial tooth colour), the bleaching
material used (for example, type of peroxide
compound, peroxide concentration
and other ingredients), and application
method (for example, contact time, application
frequency, enamel prophylaxis
before bleaching treatment). These factors
not only contribute to the bleaching efficacy but also affect the subsequent
stability of the achieved bleaching efficacy.10–13
Among these factors, the contact
time of the bleaching material to enamel
surface appears to be more influential than
the others.13
SAFETY ISSUES OF TOOTH
BLEACHING AND SOURCES
OF CONCERNS
Fig. 3 Tissue burn which the patient experienced as a result of the contact of gel to gingival
tissue during the power bleaching procedure
Safety concerns with tooth bleaching were
initially raised with the rapid growth of
at-home bleaching. The primary source
of the safety concerns with tooth bleaching
originated from the known toxicity of
H2
O2
, especially its capability to produce
free radicals, including hydroxyl radicals.
Studies indicate that oxidative reactions
of free radicals with proteins, lipids and
nucleic acids, with the consequential
potential pathological damage, may be
associated with ageing, stroke and other
degenerative diseases.14–16 The oxidative
reactions and subsequent damage in
cells by free radicals are believed to be
the major mechanisms responsible for the
observed toxicity of H2
O2
. Consequently, there were safety concerns with potential
systemic adverse effects if the bleaching
gel were to be ingested as well as local
adverse effects on enamel, pulp and gingiva
because of the direct contact of the
gel with the tissues.4,17–19 The safety controversies
over the peroxide-based tooth
bleaching prompted not only scientific
deliberations but also legal challenges to
their use in dentistry.4,6,18–20
When used appropriately the exposure
to H2
O2
from bleaching treatment is minimal.
During the in-office bleaching, the
soft tissues are adequately protected using
barrier materials and the gel is removed
at the end of bleaching; little, if any, gel
is left behind for possible ingestion. For
at-home bleaching, the approximate carbamide
peroxide dose for each at-home
application was 90 mg.2
A later report
estimated an average of 502 mg bleaching
gel per application used clinically for
ten maxillary teeth (six anterior teeth
plus four bicuspids).4
When both arches
are being bleached, the average amount of
the gel used is approximately 1.0 g. For a
bleaching gel containing 10% carbamide
peroxide, the exposure dose would be
100 mg per application. Dahl and Becher21
estimated that approximately 10% of the
applied bleaching gel may be consumed
during the application. Therefore, for an
individual of 60 kg body weight who
receives at-home bleaching for both arches
once daily, the exposure to the bleaching
gel can be calculated at 1.67 mg/kg/day,
and the exposure to carbamide peroxide
through a gel containing 10% carbamide
peroxide will be 0.167 mg/kg/day. A gel
of 10% carbamide peroxide contains approximately 3.5% H2
O2
; consequently,
the estimated H2
O2
exposure is 0.058 mg/
kg/day, or 3.48 mg H2
O2
per day for an
adult of 60 kg body weight.
The human body is equipped with various
defensive mechanisms at cellular and
tissue levels to prevent potential damage
of H2
O2
to cells and to repair any damage
sustained. Enzymes such as catalase,
SOD, peroxidase and selenium-dependent
glutathione peroxidase, which exist widely
in body fluids and tissues, including saliva,
effectively metabolise H2
O2
.
22 In fact, salivary
peroxidase has been suggested to be
the most important and effective defence
in the human body against the potential
adverse effects of H2
O2
.
23 A study
on infants, juveniles, adults, and adults
with impaired salivary flow found rapid
decomposition of H2
O2
in dentifrices.24
After one-minute brushing with one gram
of dentifrice, <2% of the pre-brushing dose
of H2
O2
(30 mg) was detectable in the oral
cavity of these subjects. This indicates that
within one minute, the oral cavity is capable
of eliminating >8 times of H2
O2
used in
a bleaching session with a gel of 10% carbamide
peroxide. Therefore, if used appropriately
the H2
O2
exposure from bleaching
is minimal; furthermore, it is essentially
limited to the oral cavity and is incapable
of reaching a systemic level to induce
toxicity because of the effective metabolic
defensive mechanisms.
With research efforts and accumulation
of data over the last two decades, safety
concerns with potential systemic toxicities
of peroxide-based tooth bleaching have
largely diminished. However, research
efforts have continued to determine the safety of home use tooth bleaching, especially
on the risk assessment, clinical
relevancy of in vitro findings, and regulations
and international standards.3,24–39 In
Europe a new directive has been outlined
for all countries in the EU30 and the United
Kingdom enacted legislation to comply
with the directive in October 2012.31–34 This
directive states that up to 6% hydrogen
peroxide may be given to consumers for
tooth bleaching treatments at-home only
after an examination and first treatment
by a dentist. The British Dental Bleaching
Society is trying to include the prohibition
of the use of chlorine dioxide for
bleaching teeth within the amendments to
the directive.
POTENTIAL RISKS ASSOCIATED
WITH TOOTH BLEACHING
While the systemic risks are no longer a
primary safety issue for tooth bleaching,
it is important to recognise its potential
local adverse effects. In-office bleaching
uses gels of high H2
O2
concentrations that
can cause tissue burns upon contact. This
effect is shown in Figure 3 in which a gel
of 25% H2
O2
was applied to the teeth. In
this case, the soft tissues were isolated with
a light cure dam. The tissue ulceration
is a chemical burn, which is sometimes
referred to as ‘tissue blanching’. The best
treatment for this is to act immediately
by applying water on the area to neutralise
the damage. If caught early the tissue
changes to red after a minute or so then
returns to the pink colour. However if the
power bleach gel is left on the soft tissue
and gingiva for too long the ulceration
takes much longer to resolve and the
patient may suffer pain from the blistering
for 1 to 2 weeks. The ulceration can
be single or multiple. Vitamin E has been
recommended for applying to the ulceration
to help healing.
Some home-use bleaching requires continuous
direct contact of the gel to enamel
surface for up to 7 or 8 hours (overnight).
The enamel-gel contact may also be
repeated within the same day or daily for
an extended period. When applied by consumers
at home, unintended direct contact
of the bleaching gel to gingiva may
occur, and for some at-home systems such
as strips, the gingival contact is inevitable.
In addition, a user undertaking at-home
bleaching may overuse the product that may aggravate the tissue due to extended
contact with the gel. Tooth sensitivity and
gingival irritation, though mostly transient
and dissipating with time and which can
be mitigated with proper usage protocol,
are well documented adverse effects associated
with tooth bleaching.
Commonly known local risks associated
with tooth bleaching include primarily
tooth sensitivity, gingival irritation
as well as potential adverse effects on
enamel and restorative materials.17–19,35–37
The level of the risk depends on the quality
of the bleaching gel, the techniques
used, and the individual’s response to the
bleaching treatment.
Tooth sensitivity
Tooth sensitivity to temperature changes is
a commonly observed clinical side effect
during or after the bleaching of vital teeth,
with an incidence up to 50%.37 The sensation
of the sensitivity often occurs during
the early stages of treatment and usually
persists for two to three days, and it is usually
mild to moderate and transient.37–39. It
appears that the sensitivity peaks on the
third day of treatment, likely because this
is when there is maximum saturation of
oxygen inside the pulp.40 The development
of tooth sensitivity does not appear to be
related to the patient’s age or sex, defective
restorations, enamel-cementum abrasion
or the dental arch treated; however, the
risk increases in patients who change the
bleaching gel more than once a day.37
The mechanisms of tooth sensitivity
are not fully understood; however, it is
believed that the sensation is possibly an
indication of pulp response to H2
O2
and free
radicals.10,13 The assumption is largely based
on in vitro studies showing that H2
O2
in
bleaching gel applied on the enamel surface
is capable of penetrating through the
enamel and dentine and reaching the pulp
chamber.38–47 In general, these studies show
that <30 μg of H2
O2
may reach the dental
pulp after applying gels of up to 12% H2
O2
on the enamel surface for up to 7 hours.
The amount of H2
O2
detected in the pulp
chamber tends to increase with the time
and H2
O2
concentration in the gel, but not
proportionally. It has been suggested that
an amount of 50,000 μg H2
O2
is needed to
inhibit pulpal enzymes, so that the detected
amount of H2
O2
penetrating into the pulp
chamber in tooth bleaching does not appear to cause significant damage to pulp tissues.
However, there is a lack of in vivo research
on this topic, and long-term effects of
such H2
O2
exposure on pulp are yet to be
determined. Therefore, practitioners should
exercise caution and bleaching should not
be performed on teeth with caries, exposed
dentine, or defective restorations.
Tooth bleaching has been used for
children and adolescents with success in
most cases.48 So far there has been only
one report of significant enamel damage
in a teenager.49 However, practitioners
are advised to take extra caution because
of newly erupted teeth; closer monitoring
and emphasis of compliance should
be exercised to reduce the risk of abuse
tendency. For practitioners in areas covered
by the EU directive, it is imperative
to observe the rule that tooth bleaching of
individuals younger than 18 years of age
is prohibited.31–34
Fig. 4 Periapical radiographs showing radiolucency on the lower left central incisor
In addition, it is essential to assess any
discoloured tooth for vitality. This is done
by measuring the response to cold, normally
with ethyl chloride and with electric
pulp testing. A periapical radiograph
is essential to assess that the discoloured
tooth does not have an existing periapical
radioluscency and is free from pathology.
If a tooth has untreated periapical radiolucency
there is a potential for a flare up of
pain during the bleaching treatment as can
be seen in Figure 4. In this case, the patient
had a power tooth bleaching treatment
first, followed by home treatment. After
three days of home bleaching the patient
reported extreme pain. The radiograph shown in Figure 4a was taken at this
stage and demonstrated the existence of a
lower periapical radiolucency associated
with the tooth. The patient needed to have
a root canal treatment to heal the lesion
and thought that the pain was due to the
initial power bleaching procedure. It is the
responsibility of the treating dentist to take
a radiograph of any discoloured tooth to
exclude the possibility of a radiolucency
being present. The patient received endodontic
treatment (Fig. 4b); there is a puff
of root canal cement extruding through
the apex of the tooth.
Gingival irritation
Gingival irritation is also a commonly
observed clinical side effect in tooth bleaching.
It may or may not occur with tooth
sensitivity; the patient may be unable to
differentiate gingival irritation from tooth
sensitivity.50–53 The reported incidence of
gingival irritation for at-home bleaching
ranges from 5 to 50% in most studies. It
is usually mild to moderate, occurring two
to three days after using the bleaching gel
and then dissipating. For most patients
gingival irritation is tolerable and is not a
barrier to completing the treatment. When
using the tray systems, an ill-fitted tray is
usually the primary cause for the irritation.
The problem is usually resolved by properly
trimming the tray. The risk of gingival
irritation appears to be related to the H2
O2
concentration in the gel and the contact of
the gel to the gingiva.
Gingival irritation associated with inoffice
bleaching is mostly caused by a leaky or failed gingival barrier protection46,47.
The practitioner must check the barrier
for signs of leakage, usually indicated
by air bubbles, and the patient should be
questioned for any discomfort during the
bleaching treatment. The light cure barrier
should cover all buccal gingival surfaces
and there should be no visible pink gingiva
showing. If tissue burn is detected (Fig. 3),
the surface should be extensively rinsed
with water until the whiteness is reduced.
In more severe cases, a topical anaesthetic,
limited movements and good oral hygiene
will help the healing process. Vitamin E
may be placed directly onto the surface of
the chemical ulceration to help healing of
the area.54 In addition, the positioning of
the light should not be too near the lips
to prevent burning. The positioning of the
bleaching light directly onto the retractor
may cause the retractor to pull on the
lower lip resulting in a tissue burn.
Potential adverse effects on enamel
The effect of bleaching on enamel has been
evaluated primarily in three aspects: mineral
loss, surface morphological changes,
and alteration of surface microhardness;
most enamel effect studies were conducted
using in vitro systems.55–63 Overall data
indicate that there is a loss of minerals
during the bleaching treatment; however,
this does not appear to constitute a significant
risk because of the effective remineralisation
mechanisms readily available
in the oral cavity. Most scanning electron
microscopy (SEM) and surface microhardness
studies showed little or no changes
of bleached enamel surface. On the other
hand, several investigators reported alteration
of enamel surfaces associated with
bleaching. However, in most cases the
observed alterations of enamel surface
morphology varied among different products
and were associated with products
using acidic pre-rinse or gels of low pH.
In addition, studies have demonstrated
that some soft drinks and fruit juices (for
example, orange, lemon and apple) can
cause demineralisation and alteration of
enamel surface morphology comparable to
or greater than those reported for bleaching
treatment. A six-month clinical study
reported that daily use of a bleaching gel
containing 10% carbamide peroxide for six
months did not adversely affect the surface
morphology of human enamel.55
To date, there is no clinical evidence of
adverse enamel effects in the dentist-monitored
at-home whiteners. However, two
clinical cases were reported on significant
damage of enamel with the use of OTC
tooth whitening products.
Potential adverse effect
on restorations
A relevant safety concern is the mercury
release from amalgam restorations during
and after the bleaching.65–69 There is
little dispute on mercury release associated
with bleaching; however, the reported
amount of mercury release varies greatly.
The issue on potential health implication
of released mercury remains controversial
and requires further research. Because of
the known toxicity of mercury, as a general
rule it is not advisable to perform bleaching
on patients whose teeth are extensively
restored with amalgams.
While the adverse effects of tooth
bleaching on restorative materials are
not considered as direct health risks,
the consequences can be significant to
the quality and longevity of the restoration.
Numerous studies have reported
that tooth bleaching may adversely affect
physical and/or chemical properties of
restorative materials, including increased
surface roughness, crack development,
marginal breakdown, release of metallic
ions, and decreases in tooth-to-restoration
bond strength.68–71 The adverse
effects of bleaching on bonding strength
have been well documented. A plausible
mechanism is the inhibition of polymerisation
of bonding agent by residual
oxygen formed during the bleaching.
Similar effects are also applicable to
other resin-based restorative materials
that require in situ polymerisation. The
post-bleaching inhibitory effects on the
polymerisation dissipate with the time,
and an interval of two weeks is found to
be adequate to avoid such adverse effects.
Y. Li*1
and L. Greenwall2
Safety Issues Of Tooth Whitening Using Peroxide-Based Materials | Journal Dental