In Vitro Assessment of Different Toothbrush Designs on Enamel Surface Abrasion: A Profilometric Study.

AIM: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of three different toothbrush designs on enamel surface abrasion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty intact freshly extracted maxillary central incisors were considered for the study. All of the extracted teeth's surfaces were severely trimmed, leaving only the labial surface intact. In the trial, a conventional teeth-whitening dentifrice slurry was utilized. A brushing model was created to deliver uniform force in unidirectional motion. Dontrix Gauge was used to control the tension of the spring. The force was kept constant at 180 ± 20 g. The mounted enamel samples were separated into three groups (20 samples each) at random: group A: toothbrushes have a flat trim bristle design, group B: toothbrushes have a zigzag pattern, and group C: toothbrushes have a bi-level bristle design. For 2 weeks, each sample was brushed twice daily for 2 minutes. A profilometer was used to measure the average surface roughness. RESULTS: After toothbrushing, the maximum mean surface roughness score was found in zigzag pattern group (2.10 ± 0.23), followed by bi-level bristle design group (2.06 ± 0.12) and the least was in the flat trim bristle design group (1.96 ± 0.09). There was a significant difference between the different toothbrush bristle pattern groups (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: On conclusion, the results of this study showed that, in comparison to toothbrushes with zigzag patterns and bi-level bristle designs, flat trim toothbrush bristle designs cause the least amount of surface abrasion and are relatively safe to use. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Toothbrushing with toothpaste contributes significantly to dental abrasion. A variety of parameters, including toothpaste abrasivity and concentration, brushing frequency, brushing length, brushing force, and toothbrush bristle stiffness, have the potential to influence the abrasion process of dental hard tissue.

Influence of Different Mouthwashes on the Efficacy of Fluoridated Dentifrices in Prevention of Enamel Erosion: An In Vitro Study.

AIM: The purpose of the current study was to evaluate the impact of three various mouthwashes on the effectiveness of fluoride dentifrices in preventing enamel erosion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 120 sound intact human premolar teeth which were extracted for orthodontic treatment were selected for the study. A 3 × 3 mm window section was positioned in the middle of the coronal surface of the tooth in order to define the study area. Each sample was placed in a solution of 1% citric acid (pH 3.5) for 10 minutes in order to produce an eroded surface. All samples were divided into two main groups (60 samples each) as follows: Group A for sodium fluoride dentifrices and group B for stannous fluoride dentifrices, again it is subdivided into: CHX: Chlohex ADS®, EO: Listerine®, CPC: Colgate® Plax (20 samples in each subgroup). After that, samples underwent the pH cycling model for 5 days. Samples were examined for surface loss using a scanning electron microscope. RESULTS: In sodium fluoride dentifrices group, before intervention, the surface loss was 3.12 ± 1.03 in CHX group, 3.08 ± 1.20 in EO group, and 3.09 ± 0.96 in CPC group. After intervention, the less surface loss found with CHX group (2.18 ± 0.84), followed by CPC (2.34 ± 0.74) and EO group (2.46 ± 0.97). In stannous fluoride dentifrices group, before intervention, the surface loss in CHX group was 3.26 ± 1.19, in EO group, it was 3.18 ± 1.31, and in CPC group, it was 3.22 ± 1.06. After intervention, the less surface loss found with CHX: group (1.90 ± 0.54), followed by CPC (2.24 ± 0.28) and EO group (2.38 ± 0.20). CONCLUSION: The present study concluded that the fluoride dentifrices' preventive effects against tooth surface loss were unaffected by a different mouthwashes with varying compositions and major constituents. In terms of erosion, fluoridated toothpaste containing stannous fluoride was found to provide better surface loss protection than sodium fluoride. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Primary prevention and the eradication of contributing causes are the greatest strategies for preventing erosion. Simultaneously, antibacterial agent in the mouthwashes may help in enhancing the effect of fluoride in the enamel, owing to their high affinity for teeth structures. Therefore, in addition to cause-related treatment, further efforts to reduce tooth tissue loss are also necessary.