Next Article in Journal
Effect of Surface Functional Groups and Calcium Ion Adsorption on Formation of Polystyrene/Apatite Core–Shell Microspheres by Aqueous Solution Method
Previous Article in Journal
Development of Structural Model of Fiber Metal Laminate Subjected to Low-Velocity Impact and Validation by Tests
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
J. Compos. Sci.
Volume 9
Issue 7
10.3390/jcs9070324
jcs-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Effect of Over-the-Counter Whitening Dentifrices on the Color Stability and Microhardness of Composite Resins

by
Xinnuo Yu
,
Maria Pilar Melo
,
Sofia Folguera
* and
Carmen Llena
Departament of Stomatology, Universitat de València, 46010 Valencia, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Compos. Sci. 2025, 9(7), 324; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcs9070324
Submission received: 13 May 2025 / Revised: 18 June 2025 / Accepted: 20 June 2025 / Published: 24 June 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Biocomposites)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the color stability and microhardness of resin-based bioactive composites after brushing with over-the-counter whitening toothpastes. Methods: A conventional resin (Luna 2) and two bioactive resins (Stela Mix and Activa Presto) were tested. Four toothpastes were used: Colgate Fresh Gel (control), Colgate Max White, Yotuel, and Crest 3D White. Forty disks of each material were prepared and divided into four subgroups. The disks were brushed to simulate three months of daily brushing. Microhardness and color changes were measured before and after brushing. Color variation was calculated using the ΔEab, ΔE00, and ΔWID indexes. Wilcoxon and two-way ANOVA tests were performed (p < 0.05). Results: In the Luna 2 and Stela groups, the b* parameter decreased significantly with all toothpastes (p < 0.05), while lightness and a* remained stable with no significant differences (p > 0.05). Stela Mix and Activa Presto exhibited color changes within the “moderately unacceptable” range according to ΔE00 (>1.8 and ≤3.6). Based on the ΔWID index, Luna 2 showed the highest variation when treated with Colgate Max (2.14 ± 1.33) and the lowest in the control group (1.08 ± 0.56A), remaining within acceptable margins with all treatments. The microhardness values before/after treatment remained for Luna 2 between 77.44 and 76.97; for Stela Mix between 76.24 and 74.13; and for Activa presto between 74.5 and 71.33. Differences were not significant for any of the pastes within each composite (p > 0.05). Conclusions: The evaluated bioactive resins exhibited color changes within the moderately unacceptable range. Colgate Max White induced the most significant color changes. Microhardness was not affected by treatment with whitening toothpastes.

1. Introduction

In recent years, there has been a notable increase in the popularity of tooth whitening among patients, as it is considered a conservative, safe, effective, and minimally invasive method [1]. It is common for teenagers to decide to use whitening toothpastes to lighten the color of their teeth. Today, tooth whitening methods range from professionally applied in-office whitening (PIO) and professionally prescribed home whitening (PPH) to nonprescription over-the-counter (OTC) whitening [2]. OTC products are becoming more popular due to their lower cost, availability, easy access, and simple application [3,4]. The desire for a whiter, brighter smile has led to the widespread use of OTC products for teeth whitening, with whitening toothpastes being the most popular and convenient method [5]. Advertising on TV channels and internet platforms has further increased their appeal to consumers.
Currently available OTC whitening toothpastes use different active ingredients to remove surface stains and enhance tooth lightness. The main components of these toothpastes include abrasives such as hydrated silica, calcium carbonate, or magnesium carbonate, as well as chemical agents such as hydrogen peroxide, carbamide peroxide, activated charcoal, blue covarine, or a combination of these. These ingredients produce a whitening effect through mechanical abrasion, chemical bleaching, or optical modification [6,7].
Some OTC toothpaste formulations contain hydrogen peroxide (HP), the active agent commonly used in professional in-office dental bleaching procedures. HP has demonstrated whitening effectiveness by penetrating the tooth structure and breaking down chromophores, leading to the oxidation of organic staining compounds [8]. Incorporating this potent agent into daily-use toothpaste formulations may offer a more convenient and accessible alternative for achieving professional-grade teeth whitening compared to other OTC products or in-office procedures [9].
Research assessing low concentrations of at-home bleaching gels with carbamide peroxide (CP) or (HP) indicates that these agents do not produce significant alterations in the surfaces of composite resins and other restorative materials [10,11,12]. However, other studies have reported bleaching-induced increases in the surface roughness of composite resins [13]. Abrasive particles, which are essential for stain removal, can also contribute to enamel abrasion and increase the roughness or microhardness of composite resin restorations, especially when their size, hardness, and concentration are not carefully controlled [9]. Additionally, acids such as citric or phosphoric acid are often included in toothpaste formulations to enhance stain removal and stabilize other components. However, these acids can lower the pH of the dentifrice, creating an acidic environment that promotes tooth wear and compromises the integrity of dental restorations [14].
Dental restorations, including composites and ceramics, play a crucial role in achieving esthetic and functional outcomes in contemporary restorative dentistry [15]. In recent years, the popularity of bioactive materials has increased due to their ability to align with the shift toward biologically integrated, patient-centered care. Bioactive resin composites represent an advancement designed to release and recharge fluoride, calcium, and phosphate ions, actively promoting tooth remineralization and reducing the risk of caries recurrence around restorations [16].
Although ion release from bioactive materials provides important therapeutic benefits, it may also affect the mechanical and esthetic properties of the material, potentially compromising its durability and longevity [17]. Compared to conventional resin composites, bioactive materials may exhibit different behavior due to variations in their composition and surface characteristics, affecting roughness, gloss, and color [18]. The stability of recently introduced bioactive materials when exposed to staining from beverages is currently under investigation [19,20]. Furthermore, as patients increasingly seek tooth whitening for esthetic purposes using OTC products, it is essential to understand how these whitening toothpastes affect bioactive restorative materials.
The present study aims to evaluate the color stability and microhardness of different resin-based bioactive materials after brushing with various OTC whitening toothpastes.
The null hypothesis is that there will be no differences in (1) color change or (2) microhardness between the investigated restorative materials and the different dentifrices.

2. Materials and Methods

For this in vitro study, three composite resins were used, all of which are characterized by being BPA-free. The composition of these materials is shown in Table 1. Three commercially available whitening toothpastes and one conventional toothpaste without whitening agents were selected. Their composition is specified in Table 1.

2.1. Sample Size Calculation

For a 95% significance level, an 80% statistical power, an effect size of 0.8, and a standard deviation of the difference in means of 2, a sample size of 8.28 elements per group was calculated and rounded up to 10.

2.2. Sample Preparation

A total of 120 composite resin samples were prepared, each with a diameter of 7 mm and a thickness of 2 mm. A disk former (Sampler, Smile Line, Brandenburg, Germany) was used. The composite was placed into the disk former with the help of a spatula. Once positioned, an acetate strip was placed over the surface, followed by a 200 g glass slab for 30 s. Each disk was polymerized using an LED curing light (RADII-CAL, SDI, Victoria, Australia) for 20 s on each side, except for Stela, which is a self-curing composite; therefore, it was allowed to set for 4 min according to the manufacturer’s instructions. After 24 h of polymerization, the samples were polished using multi-grit aluminum oxide disks (medium, fine, and super fine) (Sof-Lex Pop-On, 3M Oral Care, St Paul, MN, USA) in three different grit sizes.
The samples were stored in distilled water at room temperature until use, in separate containers for each resin. Within each material group, the samples were randomly divided into four subgroups (n = 10) according to the toothpaste to be used, as schematized in Figure 1.

2.3. Brushing with Whitening Toothpastes

To simulate the effect of brushing over three months, each disk was brushed for 90 s per day for 10 days [2]. Brushing was performed using an electric toothbrush with a built-in pressure sensor (Oral-B Pro3 3000, Procter & Gamble, Cincinnati, OH, USA). The toothpaste was diluted in water at a 1:3 ratio (by weight) for each brushing cycle [21]. To prevent cross-contamination between different toothpastes, a separate toothbrush head was used for each paste. Brushing time was timed, and after each cycle, the samples were rinsed with water and stored again in distilled water.
A support system was designed to hold the electric toothbrush in place, allowing it to function without manual assistance. The design was based on the brushing simulation device developed by Dudas C. et al., 2017 [22]. A sketch was created using SketchUp software (Trimble Inc., Westminster, CO, USA). To fabricate the system efficiently, a box was modified by creating two concavities in the upper part to hold the toothbrush handle. A rigid, waterproof base was constructed. A platform was placed to hold the resin disks at an appropriate distance for the toothbrush head to reach them. Additionally, silicone putty was added inside the box to adjust the toothbrush height (Express XT Putty Soft, -3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA). Figure 2 illustrates a schematic representation of the fabricated instrument.

2.4. Color Measurement

The color of each sample was evaluated at the beginning and end of the experiment using the VITA Easyshade V spectrophotometer (VITA, Bad Säckingen, Germany). The spectrophotometer was calibrated before measuring the color of each subgroup of samples. Color measurements were taken in a completely dark environment. The samples were placed on a neutral gray background (9a9a98 HSL color space), and the spectrophotometer tip was positioned perpendicularly at the center of each sample. The lightness (L), red–green distance (a*), and yellow–blue distance (b*) parameters were recorded in an Excel table (Microsoft, Redmond, WA, USA). Based on these parameters, the following indexes were calculated: ΔEab, ΔE00, and WID.
For color difference calculations, the CIE Lab* total color difference (ΔEab) was determined using the following formula:
ΔEab = [(Lafter − Lbefore)2 + (aafter − abefore)2 + (bafter − bbefore*)2]1/2
The visual acceptability and perceptibility thresholds described by Paravina et al. were also used to interpret the results. A value of ΔE00 ≤ 0.8 is considered clinically imperceptible; >0.8 and ≤ 1.8 is perceptible, but clinically acceptable; >1.8 and ≤3.6 is moderately unacceptable; >3.6 and ≤5.4 is clearly unacceptable; and >5.4 is extremely unacceptable [23].
ΔE00 = {[ΔL/(KLSL)]2 + [ΔC/(KCSC)]2+ [Δh/(KhSh)]2 + ΔR}1/2
The WID index is highly correlated with the visual perception registration. The 50:50 perceptibility (WPT) and acceptability (WAT) thresholds were established at 0.72 and 2.62 WID units, respectively [24]. It is calculated from the parameters L, a*, and b* according to the following formula:
WID = 0.511L* − 2.324a* − 1.100b*

2.5. Microhardness Evaluation

Microhardness was evaluated before and after treatment using a microhardness tester (HMV-2000, Shimadzu, MD, USA) with a Knoop-type penetrator and a static load of 25 g for 10 s. The specimens were positioned perpendicularly to the identifier, and the Knoop microhardness values were calculated using CAMS-WIN software (New Age Industries, Southampton, PA, USA). Three indentations were made in the central region of each specimen, with a distance of 100 μm between them.

2.6. Statistical Analisis

The data collected from the color measurements and microhardness evaluation were analyzed using the SPSS statistical software package, version 29.0.10 for Windows (IBM, New York, NY, USA). The distribution of the studied variables was determined using the Shapiro–Wilk test. Since not all variables followed a normal distribution, changes in L, a*, and b* parameters, as well as variations in microhardness for each material before and after each treatment, were compared using the Wilcoxon test.
Changes in the color indexes ΔEab, ΔE00, and WID, as well as microhardness, based on the material and the whitening treatment applied, were compared using two-way ANOVA, followed by the Games–Howell post hoc test. A significance level of p < 0.05 was used in all cases.

3. Results

3.1. Color Changes

The variations in the CIELab parameters for each material before and after treatment with the toothpaste were compared using the Wilcoxon test. For the Luna 2 composite, the lightness and the “a” component did not show significant changes with any of the pastes used. As for the “b” component, it was significantly reduced in all treatment groups, indicating a shift towards blue, ranging from 2.18 points in the group treated with Colgate Max to 1.33 with the control paste (Table 2A).
In the Stela resin disks, lightness also did not vary significantly with any of the pastes used, although a slight increase was observed except in the group brushed with Crest 3D White, where a decrease of 1.49 points was found. The a* parameter shifted to green by 0.51 points after brushing with Yotuel paste (p < 0.001). Samples brushed with Colgate Max White and Crest 3D White also showed a non-significant shift to green of 0.26 and 0.14 points, respectively, while after brushing with the control paste, a non-significant decrease of 0.45 points was observed. A significant decrease in the b* component was recorded in all groups, around three points (shift to blue) (Table 2B).
In the Activa Presto composite group, lightness significantly increased in the subgroups treated with Yotuel and Crest 3D White, in all groups except in the control paste group. The a* component shifted to green with Colgate Max White and Crest 3D White, although non-significantly, and to red by 0.25 points with Yotuel paste. The b* parameter showed a shift to blue, ranging from 4.15 points in the Colgate Max White group to 0.9 points for the control paste, being significant for the subgroups treated with Colgate Max White and Yotuel (Table 2C).
In Table 3, the changes in the color indexes calculated based on the material and toothpaste used are summarized, analyzed using a two-way ANOVA test. The Luna 2 resin showed the least color change compared to the other two resins for all indexes, with significant differences after treatment with the control paste, Colgate Max White, and Yotuel for the Δab and ΔE00 indexes (p < 0.05).
The composite resins treated with Colgate Max White experienced the greatest color change, with the Δab and ΔE00 indexes significantly higher compared to the control paste (p < 0.05).
For all resins, regardless of the toothpaste used, ΔE00 was found to be within the clinically acceptable range (>0.8 and ≤3.6). Regarding ΔWID, Stela and Activa Presto showed values above the acceptable limit (>2.62) after being treated with the control paste, and with Colgate Max White, as well as Activa Presto treated with Yotuel.

3.2. Microhardness Changes

The variations in microhardness are shown in Figure 3. It can be observed that the mean microhardness values before treatment were higher for the Luna composite (77.47 ± 3.73), followed by Stela (76.24 ± 3.23) and Activa Presto (74.50 ± 2.59), although there were no significant differences between the three materials (p > 0.05). Comparing the values for each material before treatment and after brushing with the different pastes under study, no significant differences were found (p > 0.05).

4. Discussion

The results of this study provide information on the effects of different composite resins and whitening toothpastes on color change and surface hardness, contributing to the understanding of their clinical performance in esthetic dental restorations. As the results demonstrate, color change was influenced by the type of restorative material and toothpaste used, leading to the rejection of the first null hypothesis.
Recently, new nanohybrid composites that claim to release fluoride, calcium, and phosphate ions have been introduced to the market. These materials are referred to as bioactive. Bioactive resin composites represent a transformative approach, particularly in their enhanced capacity to inhibit caries adjacent to the restoration compared to traditional resin composites [14]. While the ion release from bioactive materials provides significant therapeutic benefits, it may also affect the material’s mechanical and esthetic properties, potentially compromising the material’s overall durability and longevity [17]. Activa Presto and Stela would fall into this group of materials with the capacity to release ions, as they contain fluoroaluminosilicate glass and other ion-active fillers [17,25].
Three materials were selected for this study: one conventional nanohybrid composite (Luna 2), which served as a control, and two bioactive composites, Activa Presto and Stela.
Luna 2 is a conventional nanohybrid composite, with long-chain cross-linking monomers intended to reduce intermonomer distance within a polymer compared to shorter cross-linking monomers [26]. The manufacturers claim that the filler formula is designed for excellent polishing results, wear resistance, and longevity.
Activa Presto is a stackable, low-flow composite that supports remineralization through its methacrylate-functionalized calcium phosphate (MCP) molecule and fluoride [17].
Stela is a bulk-fill, self-curing composite that comes in a single color and two formats: capsules and an automix syringe. In the present study, the automix presentation was used. Since it does not require light for polymerization, in experimental studies, it has demonstrated greater bonding performance and fewer gaps at the interfaces compared to other light-curing composites [25]. The polymerization of Stela is initiated when it contacts the primer, accelerating the reaction at the tooth/primer–resin interface. This system uses a novel primer, free from tertiary amines, and includes glycerol-dimethacrylate (GDMA), which may enhance polymerization, mechanical properties, and adhesion to dentin, and reduce water uptake and solubility [27]. ST Automix is formulated with various fillers, including strontium fluoroaluminosilicate, ytterbium trifluoride, and calcium aluminate [25]. However, this novel automixed composite material (ST) has rarely been studied.
Four different toothpastes were used: one conventional non-whitening toothpaste and three whitening toothpastes. The whitening toothpastes were selected based on their active ingredients, either erosive and abrasive agents alone (Colgate Max White) or a combination of abrasives and CP or HP (Yotuel and Crest 3D White). To simulate the effect of three months of use, each disk was brushed for 90 s per day for 10 consecutive days. Assuming that there are 28 teeth in the mouth, the maximum contact time of a tooth was determined as 10 s, based on the recommended 2 min of brushing twice a day [28].
Changes in lightness (L), red–green distance (a*), and yellow–blue distance (b*) were determined for each material and toothpaste used to establish which parameters showed the greatest variation. It was found that the parameter b* (yellow–blue distance) had the greatest influence on the color change of the different materials. It should be noted that neither lightness nor the a* component showed significant differences for almost any material, regardless of the dentifrice used, although small variations were found in most cases. Only for Activa Presto with the dentifrices containing CP and HP (Yotuel and Crest 3D White) was a significant increase in lightness found. A yellow-to-blue tooth color shift (decrease in the b* value) is one of the important factors influencing the perception of teeth as being whiter [29].
Yotuel and Crest 3D White also incorporate titanium dioxide (TiO2) in their compositions. The catalytic action of TiO2 has strong oxidative power and chemical stability, and is influenced by reactions with its surface molecules. This process can be influenced by several factors, such as catalyst concentration, particle size and shape, pH, and substrate surface [30]. Due to this catalytic action, some studies have found that its incorporation into bleaching agents with low concentrations of HP can promote a greater release of free radicals and, consequently, a more effective bleaching effect, which can be enhanced if subjected to light [31]. TiO2 is incorporated to provide opalescence in natural teeth in restorative materials [32]. Brushing with toothpastes containing TiO2 may contribute to increasing the opacity of restorative materials and modifying their color, as has been shown in other studies [33]. In the present study, significant changes in lightness were only found with Yotuel and Crest 3D White when applied to Activa Presto, which could be due to an increase in the opacity of the material because of the composition of the dentifrices.
Colgate Max White was the toothpaste that produced the most significant changes compared to the control for all the evaluated composites in the ΔEab, ΔE00, and ΔWID indexes. This paste contains abrasive and erosive agents in its composition.
The response to color change was found to be influenced by the type of resin and by the dentifrice tested, so the first null hypothesis was rejected.
Achieving acceptable esthetics in dentistry requires accurately matching and reproducing the color appearance of dental materials, teeth, and other oral tissues. Visual assessment remains the most commonly used method for evaluating color. Therefore, a thorough understanding of perceptual thresholds within the dental color space is essential for interpreting color differences in both clinical practice and dental research. The perceptibility and acceptability thresholds defined by ΔE00 and ΔWID function as quality control tools to support the assessment of clinical performance in dentistry [34]. To ensure the accuracy of the results according to human visual perception, ΔE00 and WID indexes were calculated. The results indicate that using the ΔE00 index, Stela and Activa Presto changed color in the “moderately unacceptable” range (AT > 1.8 units). Using the WID index, Stela and Activa Presto showed unacceptable values for the WID index with the control paste, Colgate Max White, and Activa Presto also with Yotuel (AT > 2.62 units). This may indicate that the WID index is more sensitive in assessing changes in tooth color and more comprehensively evaluates the color alteration process and its acceptability [35].
The amount of organic components is a factor that can influence the more pronounced color changes in bioactive composites [17,28]. The conventional resin Luna 2 is composed of 23% organic phase by weight; Stela has 39%; and Activa Presto has 46%. In the present study, Luna 2 was the only material that maintained the color change in the acceptable range. Its chemical characteristics and higher amount of filler by wt% could justify this finding.
Tooth whitening is one of the fastest growing areas in cosmetic and restorative dentistry [36]. Whitening toothpastes are a widely used alternative by patients to lighten the color of their teeth in pursuit of a better esthetic appearance. This can contribute to an improved sense of well-being and even enhance self-esteem [37]. However, as shown in the results of the present study, bioactive restorative materials may be affected by whitening toothpastes, potentially requiring the replacement or repair of restorations, especially in areas with esthetic importance.
As described in the literature, pastes containing peroxides can cause degradation of the organic component of resins due to oxidative free radicals (ROS), which would increase the roughness and reduce the microhardness of the resins [38,39,40]. However, in the present study, no changes in microhardness were found for any of the materials tested or with any of the pastes used for brushing. Therefore, the second null hypothesis was accepted. This may be due to the fact that the paste remains in contact with the composite for a very short time, which reduces this adverse effect. Some studies indicate that the degradation capacity of composite resins is more related to the exposure time to bleaching agents than to the concentration [41,42]. Three months of treatment were simulated in the present study, which may limit the results obtained with respect to microhardness. Also the simulated exposure time for each sample (90 s for each cycle) could influence the result.
Studies have shown that microhardness values of a composite can be affected by several factors, such as organic and inorganic composition, filler content (wt%), distribution on the surface, degree of C=C conversion in methacrylate groups, and cross-linking density [43,44,45]. As demonstrated in the study by Binhasan et al., different responses were found for nanohybrid composite materials when treated with whitening pastes. They found that materials with zirconium particles in their composition were more stable with respect to hardness after brushing with whitening dentifrices [46]. In the present study, the initial microhardness obtained for Luna 2 was similar to that found in the literature [47] and higher than that of the other two materials. However, the values for Stela and Activa Presto were higher than those found in the literature [46]. It should be noted that the amount of load by weight of the materials studied before treatment follows the same trend as the microhardness, i.e., higher for Luna2, followed by Stela Mix and Activa Presto.

5. Conclusions

After analysis of the data from the present study, and within the limitations of this current study, the following conclusions can be made: Hypothesis 1: the b* component was the most reduced. All composites changed color after brushing with whitening pastes in ranges between “moderately acceptable” and “moderately unacceptable.” Colgate Max White produced the greatest changes, with Luna2 being the composite with the least color variation. Hypothesis 2: no changes in microhardness were found in any material or with any of the dentifrices evaluated.
From a clinical point of view, it must be taken into account that bioactive resins undergo color changes over time due to brushing, particularly when using toothpastes containing erosive and abrasive agents. This should be considered in clinical practice, and patients should be informed of the need to replace restorations over time, especially when these resins are placed in esthetically sensitive areas.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, C.L.; methodology, M.P.M. and S.F.; formal analysis, C.L. and S.F.; investigation, X.Y.; writing—original draft preparation, M.P.M. and X.Y.; writing—review and editing, C.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

Data may be requested from the authors. They are not available in any repository.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Krayem, E.; Banerjee, A.; Milly, H. Evaluating the efficiency of two different over-the-counter tooth whitening systems: A randomised controlled clinical trial. BDJ Open 2024, 10, 41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Auschill, T.M.; Hellwig, E.; Schmidale, S.; Sculean, A.; Arweiler, N.B. Efficacy, side-effects and patients’ acceptance of different bleaching techniques (OTC, in-office, at-home). Oper. Dent. 2005, 30, 156–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Agarwal, R.; Vasani, N.; Mense, U.S.; Prasad, N.; Shetty, A.; Natarajan, S.; Dutta, A.; Thomas, M.S. Effects of online marketplace-sourced over-the-counter tooth whitening products on the colour, microhardness, and surface topography of enamel: An in vitro study. BDJ Open 2024, 10, 67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Roselino, L.D.M.R.; Tirapelli, C.; Pires-De-Souza, F.D.C.P. Randomized clinical study of alterations in the color and surface roughness of dental enamel brushed with whitening toothpaste. J. Esthet. Restor. Dent. 2018, 30, 383–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Barbosa, L.M.M.; Amâncio Filha, M.B.G.; Leite, J.V.C.; do Nascimento Santos, J.V.; De Medeiros, J.M.; Macedo De Oliveira, I.L.; Pecho, O.E.; Saeger Meireles, S.; Bezerra Wanderley Lima, R. Over-the-Counter Products in Tooth Bleaching: A Scoping Review. J. Dent. 2024, 145, 104989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Tadin, A.; Galić, S.; Gavić, L. Assessment of Color Change, Esthetic Perception, Treatment Satisfaction, and Side Effects Following the Use of Over-The Counter Whitening Products. Acta Stomatol. Croat. 2023, 57, 300–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Mehrgan, S.; Kermanshah, H.; Omrani, L.R.; Ahmadi, E.; Rafeie, N. Comparison the effect of charcoal-containing, hydrogen peroxide-containing, and abrasive whitening toothpastes on color stability of a resin composite; an in vitro study. BMC Oral Health 2021, 21, 594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Epple, M.; Meyer, F.; Enax, J. A critical review of modern concepts for Teeth whitening. Dent. J. 2019, 7, 79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Müller-Heupt, L.K.; Wiesmann-Imilowski, N.; Kaya, S.; Schumann, S.; Steiger, M.; Bjelopavlovic, M.; Deschner, J.; Al-Nawas, B.; Lehmann, K.M. Effectiveness and safety of over-the-counter tooth-whitening agents compared to Hydrogen Peroxide in Vitro. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023, 24, 1956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Tantanuch, S.; Kukiattrakoon, B.; Peerasukprasert, T.; Schumann, S.; Steiger, M.; Bjelopavlovic, M.; Deschner, J.; Al-Nawas, B.; Lehmann, K.M.; Chanmanee, N.; et al. Surface roughness and erosion of nanohybrid and nano filled resin composites after immersion in red and white wine. J. Conserv. Dent. 2016, 19, 51–55. [Google Scholar]
  11. Gurbuz, A.; Ozkan, P.; Yilmaz, K.; Yilmaz, B.; Durkan, R. Effect of at-home whitening strips on the surface roughness and color of a composite and an ormocer restorative material. Prosthodontics 2013, 22, 69–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. de Oliveira, M.N.; Vidigal, M.T.C.; Vieira, W.; Lins-Candeiro, C.L.; Machado Oliveira, L.; Nascimento, G.G.; Rodrigues da Silva, G.; Paranhos, L.R. Assessment of color changes and adverse effects of over-the-counter bleaching protocols: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. Clin. Oral Investig. 2024, 28, 189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Amaral, C.M.; Rodrigues, J.A.; Erhardt, M.C.; Barata, M.W.; Marchi, G.M.; Heymann, H.O.; Freire Pimenta, L.A. Effect of whitening dentifrices on the superficial roughness of esthetic restorative materials. J. Esthet. Restor. Dent. 2006, 18, 102–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Kim, J.H.; Kim, S.; Park, Y.S. Effects of a commercial whitening toothpaste containing hydrogen peroxide and citric acid on dentin abrasion and erosion. BMC Oral Health 2023, 23, 619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Melo, M.A.S.; Mokeem, L.; Sun, J. Bioactive Restorative Dental Materials-The New Frontier. Dent. Clin. N. Am. 2022, 66, 551–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Zhou, W.; Chen, H.; Weir, M.D.; Oates, T.W.; Zhou, X.; Wang, S.; Cheng, L.; Xu, H.H.K. Novel bioactive dental restorations to inhibit secondary caries in enamel and dentin under oral biofilms. J. Dent. 2023, 133, 104497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Francois, P.; Fouquet, V.; Attal, J.P.; Durson, E. Commercially available fluoride-releasing restorative materials: A review and a proposal for classification. Materials 2020, 13, 2313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Turkistani, A.; Hasanain, F.A. Surface roughness and gloss retention of bioactive resin composite after simulated toothbrush abrasion. Mater. Res. Express 2024, 11, 055401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Abuljadayel, R.; Mushayt, A.; Al Mutairi, T.; Sajini, S. Evaluation of bioactive restorative materials’ Color Stability: Effect of Immersion Media and Thermocycling. Cureus 2023, 15, e43038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Tan, B.L.; Yap, A.U.; Ma, H.N.; Chew, J.; Tan, W.J. Effect of beverages on color and translucency of new tooth-colored restoratives. Oper. Dent. 2015, 40, E56–E65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Colak, G.; Katirci, G. In Vitro evaluation of the effects of whitening toothpastes on the color and surface roughness of different composite resin materials. BMC Oral Health 2023, 23, 580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Dudás, C.; Forgó, Z.; Kerekes-Máthé, B. Surface roughness changes of different restoration materials after tooth brushing simulation using different toothpastes. J. Interdiscip. Med. 2017, 2, 21–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Paravina, R.D.; Pérez, M.M.; Ghinea, R. Acceptability and perceptibility thresholds in dentistry: A comprehensive review of clinical and research applications. J. Esthet. Restor. Dent. 2019, 31, 103–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Perez, M.M.; Herrera, L.; Carrillo, F.; Pecho, O.; Pecho, O.E.; Dudea, D.; Gasparik, C.; Ghinea, R.; Della Bona, A. Whiteness difference thresholds in Dentistry. Dent. Mater. 2019, 35, 292–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Pires, P.M.; de Almeida Neves, A.; Lukomska-Szymanska, M.; Farrar, P.; Ferrando Cascales, A.; Sauro, S. Bonding performance and interfacial adaptation of modern bulk-fill restorative composites after aging in artificial saliva: An in vitro study. Clin. Oral Investig. 2024, 28, 132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Boaro, C.; Gonçalves, F.; Guimarães, T.C.; Ferracane, J.L.; Pfeifer, C.S.; Braga, R.R. Sorption, solubility, shrinkage and mechanical properties of low-shrinkage commercial resin composites. Dent. Mater. 2013, 29, 398404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Guarneri, J.A.G.; Maucoski, C.; Ghaffari, S.; MacNeil, B.D.; MacNeil, B.D.; Price, R.B.; Galvão Arrais, C.A. Ability of a Novel Primer to Enhance the Polymerization of a Self-Cured Resin Composite. Dent. Mater. 2025, 41, 42–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Dayi, B.; Öcal, F. The Effect of Whitening Toothpastes on Colour Change and Surface Roughness of Restorative Materials. Odovtos-Int. J. Dent. Sci. 2023, 25, 40–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Joiner, A. Whitening toothpastes: A review of the literature. J. Dent. 2010, 38, e17–e24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Komatsu, O.B.; Nishida, H.; Sekino, T.; Yamamoto, K. Application of titanium dioxide nanotubes to tooth whitening. Nano Biomed. 2014, 6, 63–72. [Google Scholar]
  31. Monteiro, N.R.; Basting, R.T.; Amaral, F.L.B.D.; Gomes FranÇa, F.M.; Pedroso Turssi, C.; Lisboa Filho, P.O.; Kantovitz, K.R.; Basting, R.T. Titanium dioxide nanotubes incorporated into bleaching agents: Physicochemical characterization and enamel color change. J. Appl. Oral Sci. 2020, 28, e2019077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Yu, B.; Ahn, J.S.; Lim, J.I.; Lee, Y.K. Influence of TiO2 nanoparticles on the optical properties of resin composites. Dent. Mater. 2009, 25, 1142–1147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Yilmaz, M.N.; Gul, P.; Unal, M.; Turgut, G. Effects of whitening toothpastes on the esthetic properties and surface roughness of a composite resin. J. Oral Sci. 2021, 63, 320–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Perez, M.M.; Pecho, O.E.; Ghinea, R.; Pulgar, R. Recent Advances in Color and Whiteness Evaluations in Dentistry. Curr. Dent. 2019, 1, 23–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Cheng, Y.L.; Zhong, B.J.; Su, C.; Lu, Z.C.; Yu, H. Enhanced tooth bleaching with a hydrogen peroxide/titanium dioxide gel. BMC Oral Health 2024, 24, 923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Ludovichetti, F.S.; Zerman, N.; Stellini, E.; Zambon, G.; Mazzoleni, S.; Zuccon, A. Dental bleaching: Patient perception and satisfaction. Minerva Dent. Oral Sci. 2024, 73, 217–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Mounika, A.; Mandava, J.; Roopesh, B.; Karri, G. Clinical evaluation of color change and tooth sensitivity with in-office and home bleaching treatments. Indian J. Dent. Res. 2018, 29, 423–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Hannig, C.; Duong, S.; Becker, K.; Brunner, E.; Kahler, E.; Attin, T. Effect of bleaching on subsurface micro-hardness of composite and a polyacid modified composite. Dent. Mater. 2007, 23, 198–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. de Abreu, D.R.; Sasaki, R.T.; Amaral, F.L.; Flório, F.M.; Tarkany Basting, R. Effect of home-use and in-office bleaching agents containing hydrogen peroxide associated with amorphous calcium phosphate on enamel microhardness and surface roughness. J. Esthet. Restor. Dent. 2011, 23, 158–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Fernandes, R.A.; Strazzi-Sahyon, H.B.; Suzuki, T.Y.; Fraga Briso, A.L.; Dos Santos, P.H. Effect of dental bleaching on the microhardness and surface roughness of sealed composite resins. Restor. Dent. Endod. 2020, 45, e12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Attin, T.; Hannig, C.; Wiegand, A.; Attin, R. Effect of bleaching on restorative materials and restorations: A systematic review. Dent. Mater. 2004, 20, 852–861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Worschech, C.C.; Rodrigues, J.A.; Martins, L.R.; Bovi Ambrosano, G.M. In vitro evaluation of human dental enamel surface roughness bleached with 35% carbamide peroxide and submitted to abrasive dentifrice brushing. Pesqui. Odontol. Bras. 2003, 17, 342–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Marigo, L.; Nocca, G.; Fiorenzano, G.; Callà, C.; Castagnola, R.; Cordaro, M.; Paolone, G.; Sauro, S. Influences of differentair-inhibition coatings on monomer release, microhardness, andcolor stability of two composite materials. BioMed Res. Int. 2019, 2019, 4240264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Garcia, I.M.; Balhaddad, A.A.; Aljuboori, N.; Ibrahim, M.S.; Mokeem, L.; Ogubunka, A.; Mezzomo Collares, F.; Sampaio de Melo, M.A. Wear behavior and surface quality of dental bioactive ions-releasing resinsunder simulated chewing conditions. Front. Oral Health 2021, 2, 628026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Thadathil Varghese, J.; Raju, R.; Farrar, P.; Prentice, L.; Prusty, B.G. Comparative analysis of self-cure and dual cure-dental composites on their physico-mechanical behaviour. Aust. Dent. J. 2024, 69, 124–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Binhasan, M.; Solimanie, A.H.; Almuammar, K.S.; Alnajres, A.R.; Alhamdan, M.M.; Al Ahdal, K.; Alfaawaz, Y.F.; Ali, K.; Vohra, F.; Abduljabbar, T. The Effect of Dentifrice on Micro-Hardness, Surface Gloss, and Micro-Roughness of Nano Filled Conventional and Bulk-Fill Polymer Composite-A Micro Indentation and Profilometric Study. Materials 2022, 15, 4347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Mady, T.M.; Abdelnabi, A.; Maha, S.; Bayoumi, R.E.; Abdelraouf, R.M. Effect of Different Mouthwashes on the Surface Microhardness and Color Stability of Dental Nanohybrid Resin Composite. Polymers 2023, 15, 815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Jcs 09 00324 g001
Figure 1. Distribution of study groups.
Figure 1. Distribution of study groups.
Jcs 09 00324 g001
Jcs 09 00324 g002
Figure 2. Support to hold the brush.
Figure 2. Support to hold the brush.
Jcs 09 00324 g002
Jcs 09 00324 g003
Figure 3. Mean and standard deviation of the microhardness for the different materials before and after brushing with each of the pastes.
Figure 3. Mean and standard deviation of the microhardness for the different materials before and after brushing with each of the pastes.
Jcs 09 00324 g003
Table 1. Composition of the resin composites and toothpastes.
Table 1. Composition of the resin composites and toothpastes.
ProductManufacturerComposition
Stela Mix
Composite Resin		SDI. Victoria, AustraliaUrethane dimethacrylate (44%), glycerol dimethacrylate, 10-MDP filler (55%), fluoroaluminosilicate ionomer glass, ytterbium trifluoride opacifier, silicon dioxide, calcium aluminate, initiators, stabilizers, pigments. (Filler 61.0 wt.%.)
Luna 2
Composite Resin
(A2)		SDI. Victoria, AustraliaUrethane dimethacrylates (44%), tritylene glycol dimethacrylate, tricyclododecanedimethanol dimethacrylate fillers (56%), strontium glass, silicon dioxide, ytterbium trifluoride, initiators, stabilizers, pigments (Filler 77.0 wt.%.)
ActivaTM Presto
Composite Resin
(A2)		Pulpdent Corporation, Watertown, MA, USAUDMA, Bis-2MP 35%. Methacrylate-functionalized calcium phosphate (MCP), silanated barium, strontium alumino-silicate glasses and silica. (Filler 56.0 wt.%.)
Colgate Max White One
Phosphoric Acid
Potassium Hydroxide
Tooth Paste
(Erosive Action)		Colgate-Palmolive Company, New York, NY, USAAqua, hydrated silica, sorbitol, PEG-12, pentasodium triphosphate, tetrapotassium pyrophosphate, aroma, sodium lauryl sulfate, cellulose gum, potassium hydroxide, phosphoric acid, cocamidopropyl betaine, sodium fluoride, sodium saccharin, xanthan gum, limonene, CI 74160.
Yotuel microbiome one premium whitening dentifrice
Tooth Paste
CP
TiO2 optical effect		Bio Cosmetic Laboratories, S.L, Madrid, SpainGlycerin, xylitol, water, potassium citrate, betaine, silica, dicalcium phosphate, sodium monofluorophosphate, flavor, titanium dioxide (TiO2), cocamidopropyl betaine, hydroxyethyl acrylate/sodium acryloyldimethyl tatouate copolymer, olea europea oil, sodium benzoate, carbomer, carbamide peroxide, potassium sorbate, sucralose, stevia rebaudiana leaf extract, cinnamon.
Crest 3D White Brilliance Whitening two-step
Tooth Paste
HP
TiO2 optical effect		Procter & Gamble,
Cincinnati, OH, USA		Stannous fluoride 0.454%, glycerin, hydrated silica, water, zinc lactate, sodium lauryl sulfate, trisodium phosphate, flavor, sodium gluconate, sodium saccharin, xanthan gum, cellulose gum, sodium didroxide, mica, titanium dioxide (TiO2), hydrogen peroxide, carbomer, disodium pyrophosphate, sucralose, sodium hydroxide.
Colgate Fresh Gel
Tooth Paste
(Control)		Colgate-Palmolive Company, New York, NY, USASorbitol, water, hydrated silica, PEG-12, sodium lauryl sulfate, PEG-12, flavor, cellulose gum, sodium fluoride, sodium saccharine, CI42090.
Table 2. Comparison of color parameters in the CIELab space before and after treatment.
Table 2. Comparison of color parameters in the CIELab space before and after treatment.
Colgate Fresh Gel (Control)
ALpapbp
Luna 2/before88.80 ± 1.570.13−2.50 ± 0.650.0615.50 ± 3.97<0.001
Luna 2/after89.12 ± 1.37−2.22 ± 0.6914.07 ± 3.52
Colgate Max White
Luna 2/before89.53 ± 1.730.30−2.21 ± 0.550.1214.68 ± 3.36<0.001
Luna/after89.12 ± 1.71−1.98 ± 0.7812.10 ± 3.21
Yotuel
Luna 2/before89.86 ± 0481−1.99 ± 0.430.4415.22 ± 1.54<0.001
Luna 2/after89.75 ± 1.01−1.88 ± 0.4913.73 ± 1.50
Crest 3D White
Luna 2/before89.46 ± 0.550.47−1.78 ± 0.320.7215.16 ± 2.04<0.001
Luna 2/after89.33 ± 1.25−1.81 ± 0.5913.61 ± 2.47
Colgate Fresh Gel (Control)
BLpapbp
Stela/before84.25 ± 3.270.091.71 ± 0.430.1719.57 ± 2.800.01
Stela/after85.96 ± 1.841.26 ± 0.3317.02 ± 1.56
Colgate Max White
Stela/before82.70 ± 1.690.411.33 ± 0.170.1219.84 ± 1.38<0.001
Stela/after83.63 ± 2.081.59 ± 0.4115.20 ± 2.09
Yotuel
Stela/before83.37 ± 1.930.220.91 ± 2.57<0.00119.15<0.001
Stela/after84.03 ± 2.211.42 ± 0.2516.32
Crest 3D White
Stela/before84.27 ± 1.990.451.37 ± 0.310.9318.05 ± 1.110.07
Stela/after82.78 ± 2.811.51 ± 0.2915.81 ± 1.34
Colgate Fresh Gel (Control)
CLpapbp
Activa Presto/before84.80 ± 1.130.651.80 ± 0.14126.65 ± 0.210.08
Activa Presto/after84.05 ± 0.491.80 ± 0.1425.75 ± 0.63
Colgate Max White
Activa Presto/before86.05 ± 1.900.122.80 ± 0.280.8929.05 ± 1.480.03
Activa Presto/after87.25 ± 0.772.89 ± 0.1424.90 ± 2.26
Yotuel
Activa Presto/before85.90 ± 0.140.041.70 ± 0.560.6530.60 ± 1.970.04
Activa Presto/after89.15 ± 0.491.45 ± 0.0726.15 ± 0.63
Crest 3D White
Activa Presto/before84.70 ± 2.820.031.35 ± 0.630.3125.40 ± 4.100.65
Activa Presto/after88.50 ± 1.411.50 ± 0.4224.20 ± 2.12
Table 3. Variations in ΔEab, ΔE00, and ΔWID based on the composite and toothpaste.
Table 3. Variations in ΔEab, ΔE00, and ΔWID based on the composite and toothpaste.
Colgate Fresh Gel (Control)Colgate Max WhiteYotuelCrest White
ΔEab
mean ± SDmean ± SDmean ± SDmean ± SD
Luna 21.59 ± 0.52 aA2.86 ± 1.27 aA1.89 ± 0.66 A2.08 ± 2.11 A
Stela4.28 ± 1.73 A5.46 ± 1.43 a,b,A3.38 ± 1.32 a,A3.75 ± 1.80 b
Activa Presto4.12 ± 0.694.37 ± 1.045.72 ± 1.69 A4.08 ± 1.02 A
ΔE00
Luna 20.97 ± 028 a,A1.84 ± 0.77 a,b,A1.23 ± 0.40 b,A1.42 ± 1.28
Stela2.58 ± 1.05 A3.30 ± 1.07 a,b,A2.11 ± 0.74 a,A2.40 ± 1.17 b
Activa Presto2.05 ± 0.432.11 ± 0.622.96 ± 0.45 A3.57 ± 0.90
ΔWID
Luna 21.08 ± 0.56 A,B2.14 ± 1.33 A1.32 ± 1.211.61 ± 1.78
Stela4.72 ± 3.08 a,b,A4.97 ± 1.61 c,d,A2.26 ± 1.57 a,c1.37 ± 1.86 b,d
Activa Presto3.90 ± 0.29 B5.17 ± 2.41 A3.13 ± 3.702.44 ± 1.94
Values with the same superscripts (uppercase or lowercase) within the same column or row, respectively, for each index are significantly different (two-way ANOVA test, significance threshold of p < 0.05).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Yu, X.; Melo, M.P.; Folguera, S.; Llena, C. Effect of Over-the-Counter Whitening Dentifrices on the Color Stability and Microhardness of Composite Resins. J. Compos. Sci. 2025, 9, 324. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcs9070324

AMA Style

Yu X, Melo MP, Folguera S, Llena C. Effect of Over-the-Counter Whitening Dentifrices on the Color Stability and Microhardness of Composite Resins. Journal of Composites Science. 2025; 9(7):324. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcs9070324

Chicago/Turabian Style

Yu, Xinnuo, Maria Pilar Melo, Sofia Folguera, and Carmen Llena. 2025. "Effect of Over-the-Counter Whitening Dentifrices on the Color Stability and Microhardness of Composite Resins" Journal of Composites Science 9, no. 7: 324. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcs9070324

APA Style

Yu, X., Melo, M. P., Folguera, S., & Llena, C. (2025). Effect of Over-the-Counter Whitening Dentifrices on the Color Stability and Microhardness of Composite Resins. Journal of Composites Science, 9(7), 324. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcs9070324

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop