OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the flexibility and abrasion capacity of the bristles of four soft toothbrush brands. METHODS: Toothbrushes from groups: 1: Aquafresh Flex; 2: Oral-B Indicator; 3: Colgate Classic; 4: Johnson and Johnson Reach were used for the buckling deformation flexibility assay with of load (40 g) for a 5-s period and the measurement of the diameter of the bristles using a comparison gauge (precision: 1 μm), and for the abrasion assay in a brushing machine in 100-min cycles with a standard dentifrice in a 1:1 solution with distilled water and load of 200 g. The data were normalized due to the difference in the size of the toothbrush heads and analysed by the anova and the Tukey test to adjust for multiple comparisons (α = 0.05). RESULTS: A significant difference in the flexibility of the bristles (toothbrushes from groups 2, 3 and 4 were more flexible than 1) was observed. There was no correlation between the increase in the diameter of the bristles and the reduction in flexibility. The statistical analysis revealed loss of mass due to abrasion, varying according to the flexibility of the bristles, with group 1 causing lower wear than groups 2, 3 and 4. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study showed that there are variations in bristle flexibility abrasion potential of soft-classified toothbrushes.
OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the flexibility and abrasion capacity of the bristles of four soft toothbrush brands. METHODS: Toothbrushes from groups: 1: Aquafresh Flex; 2: Oral-B Indicator; 3: Colgate Classic; 4: Johnson and Johnson Reach were used for the buckling deformation flexibility assay with of load (40 g) for a 5-s period and the measurement of the diameter of the bristles using a comparison gauge (precision: 1 μm), and for the abrasion assay in a brushing machine in 100-min cycles with a standard dentifrice in a 1:1 solution with distilled water and load of 200 g. The data were normalized due to the difference in the size of the toothbrush heads and analysed by the anova and the Tukey test to adjust for multiple comparisons (α = 0.05). RESULTS: A significant difference in the flexibility of the bristles (toothbrushes from groups 2, 3 and 4 were more flexible than 1) was observed. There was no correlation between the increase in the diameter of the bristles and the reduction in flexibility. The statistical analysis revealed loss of mass due to abrasion, varying according to the flexibility of the bristles, with group 1 causing lower wear than groups 2, 3 and 4. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study showed that there are variations in bristle flexibility abrasion potential of soft-classified toothbrushes.