Wiegand A, Begic M, Attin T
Department of Operative Dentistry, Preventive Dentistry and Periodontology, Georg August University Gottingen, Germany.
Caries Res. 2006;40(1):60-5. doi: 10.1159/000088908.
This study aimed to evaluate the susceptibility of eroded enamel to brushing abrasion performed by manual, power or sonic toothbrushes. Bovine enamel samples were subjected to 5 cycles, each consisting of 5 min demineralisation, 15 min remineralisation and 10 min brushing in a machine. Toothbrushing with the activated electric devices was supplemented with 20 linear strokes/min. Furthermore, enamel specimens were brushed with 20 linear strokes/min or 80 linear strokes/min with the electric toothbrushes without their individual operating action. A manual brush was applied at 100, 20 or 80 linear strokes/min. Specimens of the control group were not brushed after demineralisation. Loss of enamel was determined by profilometry. For all groups, substrate loss for linear brushing treatment applying 20 or 80 strokes/min did not differ significantly from the control (4.97 +/- 1.49 microm). Three power toothbrushing treatments significantly increased abrasion compared to linear brushing treatment with 20 or 80 strokes/min in their inactivated condition. The results indicate that brushing treatment with power or sonic toothbrushes may lead to significantly higher loss of demineralised enamel compared to toothbrushing without power or sonic support.
本研究旨在评估侵蚀性牙釉质对手动、电动或声波牙刷刷牙磨损的易感性。牛牙釉质样本进行5个循环，每个循环包括5分钟脱矿质、15分钟再矿化以及在机器中10分钟刷牙。使用激活的电动设备刷牙时补充20次/分钟的直线刷动。此外，牙釉质标本使用无个体操作动作的电动牙刷以20次/分钟或80次/分钟的直线刷动进行刷牙。手动牙刷以100次/分钟、20次/分钟或80次/分钟的频率使用。对照组标本脱矿质后不进行刷牙。通过轮廓测定法确定牙釉质的损失。对于所有组，以20次/分钟或80次/分钟进行直线刷牙处理的基质损失与对照组（4.97±1.49微米）相比无显著差异。与在未激活状态下以20次/分钟或80次/分钟进行直线刷牙处理相比，三种电动牙刷刷牙处理显著增加了磨损。结果表明，与无电动或声波支持的刷牙相比，使用电动或声波牙刷进行刷牙处理可能导致脱矿质牙釉质的损失显著更高。
