The aim of this study was to compare color changes, surface roughness and gloss of a microhybrid and nanohybrid composite whitened in a simulated in-office or at-home procedure using 40% hydrogen peroxide or 16% carbamide peroxide, respectively. CIELab coordinates were measured before, during and after treatment using VITA EasyShade V (VITA) and ∆E00 calculated. Surface roughness was measured using a surface roughness tester (SJ210; Mitutoyo). Gloss was measured using a gloss checker (IG-331; Horiba). At-home whitening resulted in ∆E00 of 1.23±0.49 (microhybrid) and 1.01±0.76 (nanohybrid). In-office exposure resulted in ∆E00 of 0.69±0.38 (microhybrid) and 0.72±0.50 (nanohybrid). There were no significant differences in ∆E00, surface roughness and gloss between whitening protocols (p>0.05). Color changes of a microhybrid and nanohybrid composite following simulated in-office or at-home whitening reached CIEDE2000 50:50% perceptibility but not acceptability threshold. Surface roughness and gloss of the microhybrid and nanohybrid composite were not affected by whitening.
Keywords: Carbamide peroxide; Color; Composite; Hydrogen peroxide; Whitening.