Influence of different ultra-soft toothbrushes on erosive tooth wear

Talita Portela Pereira; Thais Abranches Franco Vieira; Wilton Dos Santos; Sávio José Cardoso Bezerra; Maria Ângela Pita Sobral; Taís Scaramucci

doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2023.104502

Influence of different ultra-soft toothbrushes on erosive tooth wear

J Dent. 2023 May:132:104502. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2023.104502. Epub 2023 Mar 28.

Authors

Talita Portela Pereira¹, Thais Abranches Franco Vieira¹, Wilton Dos Santos¹, Sávio José Cardoso Bezerra¹, Maria Ângela Pita Sobral¹, Taís Scaramucci²

Affiliations

¹ Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, Av. Prof. Lineu Prestes 2227, Cidade Universitária, São Paulo, SP 05508-000, Brazil.
² Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, Av. Prof. Lineu Prestes 2227, Cidade Universitária, São Paulo, SP 05508-000, Brazil. Electronic address: tais.sca@usp.br.

PMID: 36997084
DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2023.104502

Abstract

Objective: To investigate the influence of different ultra-soft toothbrushes on the progression of erosive tooth wear (ETW).

Methods: Bovine enamel and dentin 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, with the different toothbrushes tested (A- Edel White: flexible handle, tapered bristles; B- Oral-B Gengiva Detox: regular handle, criss-cross tapered bristles; C- Colgate Gengiva Therapy: flexible handle, tapered bristles, high tuft density; d- Oral-B Expert Gengiva Sensi: regular handle, round end bristles, high tuft density; E- Oral-B Indicator Plus: soft brush, round end bristles (control). Surface loss (SL, in μm) was assessed by optical profilometry. The toothbrush characteristics were evaluated by a surgical microscope. Data were statistically analyzed (α=0.05).

Results: For enamel, toothbrush C showed the highest SL (means±SD: 9.86 ± 1.28) and it did not differ significantly from A (8.60 ± 0.50), both with flexible handles. The lowest SL was observed for the toothbrush Control E (6.76 ± 0.63), which differed significantly from A and C, but not from the other toothbrushes. For dentin, the highest SL was found for toothbrush D (6.97 ± 1.05) and it did not differ significantly from E (6.23 ± 0.71). The lowest SL was observed for B (4.61 ± 0.71) and C (4.85 + 0.83), without significant differences from A (5.01 ± 1.24).

Conclusions: The ultra-soft toothbrushes had different impacts on the progression of ETW on the dental substrates. On enamel, higher ETW values were observed for the flexible handle toothbrushes, while for dentin, round-end bristles (ultra-soft and soft) caused more ETW.

Clinical significance: Knowledge about the effect of different ultra-soft toothbrushes on ETW can help clinicians to recommend the most suitable types for their patients, bearing in mind that toothbrushes can impact enamel and dentin differently.

Keywords: Dentin; Enamel; Erosive tooth wear; Optical profilometry; Toothbrush bristles; Toothbrushing.

Publication types

Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

Animals
Cattle
Humans
Tooth Abrasion* / etiology
Tooth Attrition*
Tooth Erosion* / complications
Tooth Wear* / complications
Toothbrushing / adverse effects