4.7 Article

Effect of the toothbrush tuft arrangement and bristle stiffness on the abrasive dentin wear

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 12, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-04884-x

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the impact of toothbrush tuft arrangement and bristle stiffness on abrasive dentin wear. The results showed that crossed tuft toothbrushes caused less wear compared to parallel tuft toothbrushes. Additionally, soft crossed tuft toothbrushes resulted in higher wear compared to medium crossed tuft toothbrushes. These findings can provide useful guidance for dentists and dental hygienists in advising patients.
The geometrical properties of toothbrushes play a role in developing abrasive tooth wear and non-carious cervical lesions. This study investigated the interplay between the toothbrush tuft arrangement (crossed vs. parallel) and bristle stiffness (soft vs. medium) on the abrasive dentin wear using three slurries with different levels of abrasivity (RDA: 67, 121 and 174). Twelve groups of bovine dentin samples (n = 20) were brushed with a combination of the aforementioned variables. Abrasive dentin wear was recorded with a profilometer and the resulting abrasive wear of each group was calculated and compared with each other using two-way ANOVA and pairwise tests. Toothbrushes with parallel tuft arrangement caused statistically significantly higher dentin wear compared to crossed tuft arrangement, regardless of the abrasivity level of the used slurry and the bristle stiffness. Soft crossed tuft toothbrushes caused statistically significantly higher abrasive dentin wear than medium crossed tuft toothbrushes, while soft and medium parallel tuft toothbrushes caused the same amounts of dentin wear, regardless of the RDA value of the used slurry. These results could be helpful for dentists and dental hygienists when advising patients. Crossed tuft toothbrushes could be a less-abrasive choice in comparison to parallel tuft toothbrushes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据