Summary of findings 17. CP paint‐on versus HP paint‐on for whitening teeth.
| Carbamide peroxide (CP) paint‐on compared to hydrogen peroxide (HP) paint‐on for whitening teeth | ||||||
| Patient or population: adults undergoing bleaching Setting: home‐based Intervention: CP paint‐on Comparison: HP paint‐on | ||||||
| Tooth whitening ‐ assessed by the dentist | ||||||
| Comparison | Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | Number of participants (studies) | Certainty of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Risk with CP paint‐on | Risk with HP paint‐on | |||||
| 25% CP paint‐on versus 8.75% HP paint‐on (higher shade indicates whiter) | The mean change in shade in 25% CP paint‐on group was 6.54 | Mean difference in shade change was 0.16 lower in 8.75% HP paint‐on group (1.39 lower to 1.07 higher) | ‐ | 59 (1 RCT) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ VERY LOW1, 2 | ‐ |
| Adverse effects | ||||||
| Not reported | ||||||
| *The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI) CI: confidence interval; RCT: randomised controlled trial | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High certainty: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect Moderate certainty: we are moderately confident in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different Low certainty: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect Very low certainty: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect | ||||||
1Downgraded for risk of bias ‐ unclear risk of bias due to lack of selection, performance and detection bias. 2Downgraded for imprecision ‐ single trial, low sample and event rate.