The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of light exposure associated with 35% hydrogen peroxide (Pola Office, SDI, Melbourne, Vic., Australia) or 15% hydrogen peroxide (BriteSmile, Discus, Culver City, CA, USA) on the microhardness and color changes of bovine enamel. Experimental groups were Britesmile + Light (BL) (15% hydrogen peroxide + plasm arc; 4 x 20 minutes), Britesmile + No Light (BN) (BL, no light), Pola office + Light (PL) (35% hydrogen peroxide + LED; 4 x 8 minutes), and Pola office + No light (PN) (PL, no light). Color changes (DeltaE) and the CIELAB (Commission Internationale de l' Eclairage, L* a* b* color system) parameters (L*, a*, and b*) were assessed with a spectrophotometer before (B), immediately (A), 1 day and 7 days after bleaching. The microhardness was measured before (B) and after (A), the obtained data were submitted to a two-way analysis of variance, and DeltaE were submitted to t-test for each period. Only Pola Office, in which the peroxide is associated with the light, improved DeltaE when evaluated immediately after bleaching (p < 0.001). Light exposure did not influence DeltaE after 1 day or 7 days for either bleaching system. The enamel microhardness was not altered after bleaching for BriteSmile. However, enamel microhardness was reduced after bleaching for Pola Office, 283 MPa (+/-21) and 265 MPa (+/-27), respectively. It was concluded that these two bleaching systems were efficient regardless of the light systems used. However, the 35% hydrogen peroxide altered the enamel microhardness. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE Enamel microhardness was affected by a 35% hydrogen peroxide in-office bleaching therapy. Moreover, the in-office bleaching outcome was not improved by using the light associated with systems tested in this study. (J Esthet Restor Dent 21:387-396, 2009).