The present report presents a case of dens invaginatus (DI) in a patient with 4 maxillary incisors. A 24-year-old female complained of swelling of the maxillary left anterior region and discoloration of the maxillary left anterior tooth. The maxillary left lateral incisor (tooth #22) showed pulp necrosis and a chronic apical abscess, and a periapical X-ray demonstrated DI on bilateral maxillary central and lateral incisors. All teeth responded to a vitality test, except tooth #22. The anatomic form of tooth #22 was similar to that of tooth #12, and both teeth had lingual pits. In addition, panoramic and periapical X-rays demonstrated root canal calcification, such as pulp stones, in the maxillary canines, first and second premolars, and the mandibular incisors, canines, and first premolars bilaterally. The patient underwent root canal treatment of tooth #22 and non-vital tooth bleaching. After a temporary filling material was removed, the invaginated mass was removed using ultrasonic tips under an operating microscope. The working length was established, and the root canal was enlarged up to #50 apical size and obturated with gutta-percha and AH 26 sealer using the continuous wave of condensation technique. Finally, non-vital bleaching was performed, and the access cavity was filled with composite resin.

This clinical study evaluated the whitening effect and safety of polymer based-pen type BlancTis Forte (NIBEC) containing 8.3% carbamide peroxide. Twenty volunteers used the BlancTis Forte whitening agent for 2 hours twice a day for 4 weeks. As a control, Whitening Effect Pen (LG) containing 3% hydrogen peroxide was used by 20 volunteers using the same protocol. The change in shade (ΔE^*, color difference) was measured using Shadepilot™ (DeguDent) before, during, and after bleaching (2 weeks, 4 weeks, and post-bleaching 4 weeks). A clinical examination for any side effects (tooth hypersensitivity or soft tissue complications) was also performed at each check-up. The following results were obtained.

1. Both the experimental and control groups displayed a noticeable change in shade (ΔE) of over 2. No significant differences were found between the two groups (p > 0.05), implying that the two agents have a similar whitening effect.

2. The whitening effect was mainly due to changes in a and b values rather than in L value (brightness). The experimental group showed a significantly higher change in b value, thus yellow shade, than the control (p < 0.05).

3. None of the participants complained of tooth hypersensitivity or soft tissue complications, confirming the safety of both whitening agents.