OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the influence of different toothpaste abrasives on the bristle wear and bristle tip morphology of toothbrushes with different degrees of hardness. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Ninety samples of bovine incisor teeth were used in this study. The samples were randomly divided into three groups according to the bristle hardness of the toothbrush used: soft bristles (S); extra-soft bristles (ES); hard bristles (H). The toothbrushes of each group were randomly divided into six subgroups with five toothbrushes each, according to the abrasive of the toothpaste used in the simulation: Negative control (distilled water); toothpaste 1 (silica); toothpaste 2 (hydrated silica); toothpaste 3 (calcium carbonate, calcium bicarbonate and silica); toothpaste 4 (tetrapotassium pyrophosphate, silica and titanium dioxide); toothpaste 5 (calcium carbonate). The samples were placed in a toothbrushing simulating machine that simulating three months of brushing. The toothbrush bristles were evaluated by the bristle wear index, and the bristle tips morphology was evaluated by the bristle tip morphology index. RESULTS: The ES brush presented the highest bristle wear among the toothbrushes. Additionally, the S brushes showed better morphology of the bristles followed by ES and H brushes. The type of abrasive only influenced the bristle tip morphology of the ES brushes. The toothpaste 3 induced the worse bristle tip morphology than all the other toothpastes. CONCLUSIONS: Different abrasives have influence only on the bristle tip morphology of the ES brushes.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the influence of different toothpaste abrasives on the bristle wear and bristle tip morphology of toothbrushes with different degrees of hardness. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Ninety samples of bovine incisor teeth were used in this study. The samples were randomly divided into three groups according to the bristle hardness of the toothbrush used: soft bristles (S); extra-soft bristles (ES); hard bristles (H). The toothbrushes of each group were randomly divided into six subgroups with five toothbrushes each, according to the abrasive of the toothpaste used in the simulation: Negative control (distilled water); toothpaste 1 (silica); toothpaste 2 (hydrated silica); toothpaste 3 (calcium carbonate, calcium bicarbonate and silica); toothpaste 4 (tetrapotassium pyrophosphate, silica and titanium dioxide); toothpaste 5 (calcium carbonate). The samples were placed in a toothbrushing simulating machine that simulating three months of brushing. The toothbrush bristles were evaluated by the bristle wear index, and the bristle tips morphology was evaluated by the bristle tip morphology index. RESULTS: The ES brush presented the highest bristle wear among the toothbrushes. Additionally, the S brushes showed better morphology of the bristles followed by ES and H brushes. The type of abrasive only influenced the bristle tip morphology of the ES brushes. The toothpaste 3 induced the worse bristle tip morphology than all the other toothpastes. CONCLUSIONS: Different abrasives have influence only on the bristle tip morphology of the ES brushes.
Authors: Martijn P C Van Leeuwen; Fridus A Van der Weijden; Dagmar Else Slot; Martijn A M Rosema Journal: Int J Dent Hyg Date: 2018-11-19 Impact factor: 2.477
Authors: Gabriela Migliorin da Rosa; Luciana Mendonça da Silva; Márcio de Menezes; Hugo Felipe do Vale; Diego Ferreira Regalado; Danielson Guedes Pontes Journal: Eur J Dent Date: 2016 Apr-Jun