Affordable Access

deepdyve-link
Publisher Website

Interplay between different manual toothbrushes and brushing loads on erosive tooth wear.

Authors
  • Souza, Cíntia de Melo Silva1
  • Sakae, Letícia Oba2
  • Carneiro, Paula Mendes Acatauassú3
  • Esteves, Renata Antunes4
  • Scaramucci, Taís5
  • 1 Department of Clinic, University Center of State of Para, School of Dentistry, Tv. 9 de Janeiro 927, Belém, PA, 66060-080, Brazil. Electronic address: [email protected] , (Brazil)
  • 2 Department of Restorative Dentistry, University of São Paulo, School of Dentistry, Av. Prof. Lineu Prestes 2227, Cidade Universitária, São Paulo, SP, 05508-000, Brazil. Electronic address: [email protected] , (Brazil)
  • 3 Department of Clinic, University Center of State of Para, School of Dentistry, Tv. 9 de Janeiro 927, Belém, PA, 66060-080, Brazil. Electronic address: [email protected] , (Brazil)
  • 4 Department of Clinic, University Center of State of Para, School of Dentistry, Tv. 9 de Janeiro 927, Belém, PA, 66060-080, Brazil. Electronic address: [email protected] , (Brazil)
  • 5 Department of Restorative Dentistry, University of São Paulo, School of Dentistry, Av. Prof. Lineu Prestes 2227, Cidade Universitária, São Paulo, SP, 05508-000, Brazil. Electronic address: [email protected] , (Brazil)
Type
Published Article
Journal
Journal of dentistry
Publication Date
Feb 01, 2021
Volume
105
Pages
103577–103577
Identifiers
DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2020.103577
PMID: 33388388
Source
Medline
Keywords
Language
English
License
Unknown

Abstract

To investigate the effect of different types of manual toothbrushes and brushing loads on the progression of erosive tooth wear (ETW) on enamel. Bovine enamel specimens (n = 10) were submitted to a 5-day erosive-abrasive cycling model (0.3 % citric acid for 5 min, artificial saliva for 60 min, 4x/day). Toothbrushing was carried out 2x/day for 15 s, according to the toothbrushes tested (ultra-soft (a): Curaprox 5460; ultra-soft (b): Sensodyne Repair & Protect; soft (a): Colgate Slim Soft; soft (b): Oral-B Indicator Plus; medium: Johnson's Professional; hard: Tek) and brushing loads (1.5 N, 3 N). Surface loss (SL, in μm) was assessed by optical profilometry on conclusion of the cycling. Some of the toothbrush characteristics were evaluated. Data were statistically analyzed (α = 0.05). For the 1.5 N load, the hard brush showed the highest SL value, with statistical significance. The other toothbrushes did not differ significantly, except that ultra-soft (a) caused significantly higher SL than ultra-soft (b). For the 3 N load, hard and soft (a) exhibited the highest SL. Soft (b) and medium had the lowest SL value, with statistical significance. Only soft (a) and ultra-soft (b) showed significant difference between loads, with lower SL for the load of 1.5 N. None of the toothbrush characteristics were significantly correlated with SL. Although different degrees of enamel surface loss were observed with use of the different toothbrushes, no association was found between the toothbrush characteristics and SL. Depending on the toothbrush, the force of brushing was capable of modulating the ETW of enamel. Based on the brushing loads usually applied by healthy individuals, hard brushes are not recommended for use by patients with ETW. The use of hard bristle brushes is not recommended for use by individuals who exert healthy forces when brushing their teeth. The toothbrush characteristics are of secondary importance in terms of causing enamel loss in ETW. Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Report this publication

Statistics

Seen <100 times