Toothbrush abrasivity in a long-term simulation on human dentin depends on brushing mode and bristle arrangement

• Published in: PloS one 2017-02, Vol.12 (2), p.e0172060-e0172060
• Main Authors: Bizhang, Mozhgan, Schmidt, Ilka, Chun, Yong-Hee Patricia, Arnold, Wolfgang H, Zimmer, Stefan
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Abrasion; Abrasion resistance; Adhesive strength; Biology and Life Sciences; Brushes; Brushing; Composite materials; Dentifrices; Dentin; Dentin - injuries; Dentistry; Enamel; Fluorides; Humans; Medicine and Health Sciences; Molars; Older people; People and Places; Physical Sciences; Samples; Simulation; Statistical analysis; Statistical methods; Teeth; Thermal cycling; Tooth Abrasion - etiology; Toothbrushes; Toothbrushing - adverse effects; Toothbrushing - methods; Toothpaste
• ISSN: 1932-6203; 1932-6203
• DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0172060

The aim of this study was to evaluate the susceptibility of dentin to brushing abrasion using four different toothbrushes (rotating-oscillating, sonic and two types of manual toothbrushes) with the same brushing forces. Dentin samples (n = 72) were selected from 72 impacted third molars. Half of the surface of dentin samples was covered with an adhesive tape, creating a protected and a freely exposed area in the same specimen. Brushing was performed with either a: sonic (Sonicare PowerUp, Philips GmbH, Hamburg, Germany), b: oscillating-rotating (Oral B Vitality Precisions Clean, Procter & Gamble, Schwalbach am Taunus, Germany) or two different manual toothbrushes c: flat trim brush head toothbrush (Dr. Best: Original, Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Bühl, Germany) and d: rippled-shaped brush head toothbrush (Blend-a-Dent, Complete V-Interdental, Blend-a-med, Schwalbach, Germany) in a custom made automatic brushing machine. The brushing force was set to 2 N and a whitening toothpaste (RDA = 150) was used. The simulation period was performed over a calculated period to mimic a brushing behavior of two times a day brushing for eight years and six months. Dentin loss was quantitatively determined by profilometry and statistically analyzed by Wilcoxon and Mann-Whitney-U Test (p < 0.05). The mean (standard deviation) surface loss was 21.03 (±1.26) μm for the sonic toothbrush, 15.71 (±0.85) μm for the oscillating-rotating toothbrush, 6.13 (±1.24) μm for the manual toothbrush with flat trim brush head and 2.50 (±0.43) μm for the manual toothbrush with rippled-shaped brush head. Differences between all groups were statistically significant at p