D Dyer1, M Addy, R G Newcombe. 1. Division of Restorative Dentistry, Dental School, Bristol, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Loss of dentine at the buccal cervical region of teeth has a multifactorial aetiology. However, a considerable amount of circumstantial evidence, supported by laboratory experiments, implicates toothbrushing with toothpaste as a consistent factor. Most interest has centred around the abrasivity of toothpastes, particularly since a toothbrush alone has negligible effects on dentine. The influence of filament stiffness on toothpaste abrasion was the subject of some studies, mostly at least 2 decades ago, and produced conflicting conclusions. Numerous changes to toothbrush design and construction have taken place in recent years. AIMS: The aim of this study was to measure the abrasion of a standard substrate, acrylic, by a standard toothpaste carried on modern brands of toothbrushes classified by manufacturers as hard (3 brands), medium (3 brands) and soft (6 brands). METHOD: The substrate was brushed for 20,000 strokes with at least 6 heads from each brand. Measurements of substrate loss were made at 5000 stroke increments by profilometry. RESULTS: Substrate loss for all brushes showed a pattern of abrasion which was to a first approximation linear. Overall, hard brushes caused least abrasion and soft brushes the most, with differences between groups being significant. Within-group differences between brands reached significance for soft and medium brushes but not hard brushes. CONCLUSIONS: The results could be explained by increased retention of toothpaste by smaller diameter filaments and denser tufts on soft brushes and the greater flexion of filaments increasing the area of contact with the surface. Calculations on the clinical outcome of these data in vitro indicate that toothbrushing with toothpaste alone would produce minimal damage to dentine even over many years. Differences between brushes therefore are probably of little clinical significance. Certainly, the data do not support the use of hard brushes, particularly in view of the potential detrimental effects to gingival tissues.
BACKGROUND: Loss of dentine at the buccal cervical region of teeth has a multifactorial aetiology. However, a considerable amount of circumstantial evidence, supported by laboratory experiments, implicates toothbrushing with toothpaste as a consistent factor. Most interest has centred around the abrasivity of toothpastes, particularly since a toothbrush alone has negligible effects on dentine. The influence of filament stiffness on toothpaste abrasion was the subject of some studies, mostly at least 2 decades ago, and produced conflicting conclusions. Numerous changes to toothbrush design and construction have taken place in recent years. AIMS: The aim of this study was to measure the abrasion of a standard substrate, acrylic, by a standard toothpaste carried on modern brands of toothbrushes classified by manufacturers as hard (3 brands), medium (3 brands) and soft (6 brands). METHOD: The substrate was brushed for 20,000 strokes with at least 6 heads from each brand. Measurements of substrate loss were made at 5000 stroke increments by profilometry. RESULTS: Substrate loss for all brushes showed a pattern of abrasion which was to a first approximation linear. Overall, hard brushes caused least abrasion and soft brushes the most, with differences between groups being significant. Within-group differences between brands reached significance for soft and medium brushes but not hard brushes. CONCLUSIONS: The results could be explained by increased retention of toothpaste by smaller diameter filaments and denser tufts on soft brushes and the greater flexion of filaments increasing the area of contact with the surface. Calculations on the clinical outcome of these data in vitro indicate that toothbrushing with toothpaste alone would produce minimal damage to dentine even over many years. Differences between brushes therefore are probably of little clinical significance. Certainly, the data do not support the use of hard brushes, particularly in view of the potential detrimental effects to gingival tissues.