The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 14 , ISSUE 6 ( November-December, 2013 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Effects of Toothbrush Hardness on in vitro Wear and Roughness of Composite Resins

Hideaki Kyoizumi, Junji Yamada, Toshimitsu Suzuki, Masafumi Kanehira, Werner J Finger, Keiichi Sasaki

Citation Information : Kyoizumi H, Yamada J, Suzuki T, Kanehira M, Finger WJ, Sasaki K. Effects of Toothbrush Hardness on in vitro Wear and Roughness of Composite Resins. J Contemp Dent Pract 2013; 14 (6):1137-1144.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1464

Published Online: 01-12-2013

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2013; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim

To investigate and compare the effects of toothbrushes with different hardness on abrasion and surface roughness of composite resins.

Materials and methods

Toothbrushes (DENT. EX Slimhead II 33, Lion Dental Products Co. Ltd., Tokyo, Japan) marked as soft, medium and hard, were used to brush 10 beam-shaped specimens of each of three composites resins (Venus [VEN], Venus Diamond [VED] and Venus Pearl [VEP]; HeraeusKulzer) with standardized calcium carbonate slurry in a multistation testing machine (2N load, 60 Hz). After each of five cycles with 10k brushing strokes the wear depth and surface roughness of the specimens were determined. After completion of 50k strokes representative samples were inspected by SEM. Data were treated with ANOVA and regression analyses (p < 0.05).

Results

Abrasion of the composite resins increased linearly with increasing number of brushing cycles (r2 > 0.9). Highest wear was recorded for VEN, lowest for VED. Hard brushes produced significantly higher wear on VEN and VEP, whereas no difference in wear by toothbrush type was detected for VED. Significantly highest surface roughness was found on VED specimens (Ra > 1.5 μm), the lowest one on VEN (Ra < 0.3 μm). VEN specimens showed increased numbers of pinhole defects when brushed with hard toothbrushes, surfaces of VEP were uniformly abraded without level differences between the prepolymerized fillers and the glass filler-loaded matrix, VED showed large glass fillers protruding over the main filler-loaded matrix portion under each condition.

Conclusion

Abrasion and surface roughness of composite resins produced by toothbrushing with dentifrice depend mainly on the type of restorative resin. Hardness grades of toothbrushes have minor effects only on abrasion and surface roughness of composite resins. No relationship was found between abrasion and surface roughness.

Clinical significance

The grade of the toothbrush used has minor effect on wear, texture and roughness of the composite resin.

How to cite this article

Kyoizumi H, Yamada J, Suzuki T, Kanehira M, Finger WJ, Sasaki K. Effects of Toothbrush Hardness on in vitro Wear and Roughness of Composite Resins. J Contemp Dent Pract 2013;14(6):1137-1144.


PDF Share
  1. Mechanical oral hygiene practices. In: Dental plaque control measures and oral hygiene practices. Ed. Löe H and Kleinman DV. IRL Press, Oxford 1986;93-116.
  2. Dentistry – Stiffness of the tufted area of toothbrushes. International Standard 1987.
  3. Toothbrush abrasion of resin composites with different filler concepts. World J Dent 2012;3:184-193.
  4. Measuring success in toothbrush design — an opinion and debate of the concepts. Int Dent J 1998;48(supplement 1):509-518.
  5. The role of the toothbrush in the abrasion process. Int J Dent Hygiene 2011;9:284-290.
  6. Studies in vitro of abrasion by different manual toothbrush heads and a standard toothpaste. J Clin Periodontol 2000;27:99-103.
  7. Abrasion of dentine by toothbrush and dentifrice. Odontol Revy 1966;17:17-27.
  8. An epidemiologic approach to toothbrushing and dental abrasion. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1979;7:57-64.
  9. Differences in abrasion capacity of four soft toothbrushes. Int J Dent Hygiene 2011;9:274-278.
  10. Surface roughness of different dental materials before and after simulated toothbrushing in vitro. Oper Dent 2005;30:617-626.
  11. Resistance of nanofill and nanohybrid resin composites to toothbrush abrasion with calcium carbonate slurry. Dent Mater J 2009;28:708-716.
  12. Comparison of surface roughness of oral hard materials to the threshold surface roughness for bacterial plaque retention: a review of the literature. Dent Mater 1997;13:258-269.
  13. The influence of titanium abutment surface roughness on plaque accumulation and gingivitis: short-term observations. In J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1996;11:169-178.
  14. The influence on abutment surface roughness on plaque accumulation and peri-implant mucositis. Clin Oral Imp Res 1996;7:201-211.
  15. Control of brushing variables for the in vitro assessment of toothpaste abrasivity using a novel laboratory model. J Dent 2008;36:117-124.
  16. Dental materials – Guidance on testing of wear – Part 1: Wear by tooth brushing. Technical report 2007;14569-14571.
  17. Relationship between the plaque removal efficacy of a manual toothbrush and brushing force. J Clin Periodontol 1998;25:413-416.
  18. Influence of storage regime prior to abrasion on surface topography of restorative materials. J Biomed Mater Res 2003;65:227-232.
  19. Wear resistance of packable resin composites after simulated toothbrushing test. J Esthet Restor Dent 2004;16:303-314.
  20. Surface deterioration of dental materials after simulated toothbrushing in relation to brushing time and load. Dent Mater 2010;26:306-319.
  21. Wear and surface roughness of current prosthetic composites after toothbrush/dentifrice abrasion. J Prosthet Dent 2000;84:93-97.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.