Corrigendum to “Comparison of in-office and at-home bleaching techniques: An umbrella review of efficacy and post-operative sensitivity” [Heliyon 10(3), 15 February 2024, e25833] (Heliyon (2024) 10(3), (S2405844024018644), (10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e25833))

In the original published version of this article, the following errors are identified by the authors. 1. Abstract, Results:There is no difference between in-office and at-home techniques in terms of color change (p = 0.76) and the post-treatment sensitivity intensity (p = 0.65). 2. Abstract, clinical relevance:Both bleaching techniques were efficacy in color change, and both presented the same risk for tooth sensitivity, even with light activation. 3. Figure 2: Comparison of bleaching efficacy between light versus non-light for high and low concentrations at the sort-term comparison. [Figure presented] 4. Figure 3: Comparison between the risk ratio of sensitivity between light versus non-light. [Figure presented] 5. Figure 4: Comparison between the sensitivity intensity between light versus non-light. [Figure presented] 6. Results, Meta-analysis:In the overall comparison between the use of light and non-light for high and low concentrations of HP, there is no significative difference between the parameters evaluated (Figure 2). Also, in the overall comparison between the use of light and non-light, no significative increase in the risk ratio of sensitivity was detected (Figure 3). 7. Table 2 [Table presented] The authors apologize for the errors. Both the HTML and PDF versions of the article have been updated to correct the errors.