Comparative clinical study of the effectiveness of different dental bleaching methods - two year follow-up

This study evaluated color change, stability, and tooth sensitivity in patients submitted to different bleaching techniques. Material and methods: In this study, 48 patients were divided into five groups. A half-mouth design was conducted to compare two in-office bleaching bleaching techniques (with and without light activation): G1: 35% hydrogen peroxide (HP) (Lase Peroxide - DMC Equipments, Sao Carlos, SP, Brazil) + hybrid light (HL) (LED/Diode Laser, Whitening Lase II DMC Equipments, Sao Carlos, SP, Brazil); G2: 35% HP; G3: 38% HP (X-traBoost - Ultradent, South Jordan UT, USA) + HL; G4: 38% HP; and G5: 15% carbamide peroxide (CP) (Opalescence PF - Ultradent, South Jordan UT, USA). For G1 and G3, HP was applied on the enamel surface for 3 consecutive applications activated by HL. Each application included 3x3' HL activations with 1' between each interval; for G2 and G4, HP was applied 3x15' with 15' between intervals; and for G5, 15% CP was applied for 120'/10 days at home. A spectrophotometer was used to measure color change before the treatment and after 24 h, 1 week, 1, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months. A VAS questionnaire was used to evaluate tooth sensitivity before the treatment, immediately following treatment, 24 h after and finally 1 week after. Results: Statistical analysis did not reveal any significant differences between in-office bleaching with or without HL activation related to effectiveness; nevertheless the time required was less with HL. Statistical differences were observed between the result after 24 h, 1 week and 1, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months (integroup). Immediately, in-office bleaching increased tooth sensitivity. The groups activated with HL required less application time with gel. Conclusion: All techniques and bleaching agents used were effective and demonstrated similar behaviors.

Comparative Analysis of the Complications of 5347 Endomyocardial Biopsies Applied to Patients After Heart Transplantation and With Cardiomyopathies: A Single-center Study

Introduction. Endomyocardial biopsy (EMB) plays an important role in allograft surveillance to screen an acute rejection episode after heart transplantation (HT), to diagnose an unknown cause of cardiomyopathies (CMP) or to reveal a cardiac tumor. However, the procedure is not risk free. Objective. The main objective of this research was to describe our experience with EMB during the last 33 years comparing surgical risk between FIT versus no-HT patients. Method. We analyzed retrospectively the data of 5347 EMBs performed from 1978 to 2011 (33 years). For surveillance of acute rejection episodes after HT we performed 3564 (66.7%), whereas 1777 (33.2%) for CMP diagnosis, and 6 (1.0%) for cardiac tumor identification. Results. The main complications due to EMB were divided into 2 groups to facilitate analysis: major complications associated with potential death risk, and minor complications. The variables that showed a significant difference in the HT group were as follows: tricuspid Injury (.0490) and coronary fistula (.0000). Among the no-HT cohort they were insufficient fragment (.0000), major complications (.0000) and total complications (.0000). Conclusions. EMB can be accomplished with a low risk of complications and high effectiveness to diagnose CMP and rejection after HT. However, the risk is great among patients with CMP due to their anatomic characteristics. Children also constitute a risk group for EMB due to their small size in addition to the heart disease. The risk of injury to the tricuspid valve was higher among the HT group.