Department of Cariology, Operative Dentistry and Dental Public Health, Indiana University School of Dentistry, Oral Health Research Institute, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Department of Biostatistics, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Int Dent J. 2017 Dec;67(6):344-350. doi: 10.1111/idj.12305. Epub 2017 Jun 2.
To investigate the loss of enamel and dentin surface caused by the interaction between abrasives in toothpaste and toothbrush filament stiffness.
The study followed a 2 (high-level or low-level abrasive; silica) × 3 (filament stiffness; soft, medium or hard) × 2 (cycling time; 3 or 5 days) factorial design. Polished bovine enamel and dentin specimens (n = 8 each per group) were subjected to 5 days of erosion/abrasion cycling: erosion (5 minutes, four times daily, 0.3% citric acid, pH 3.75); abrasion (15 seconds, twice daily, 45 strokes each, 150 g load, automated brushing machine); and fluoride treatment [15 seconds with abrasion and 45 seconds without abrasion; 275 p.p.m. fluoride (F ) as sodium fluoride (NaF) in abrasive slurry]. Enamel and dentin specimens were exposed to artificial saliva between erosion and abrasion/F treatment (1 hour) and at all other times (overnight). Non-contact profilometry was used to determine surface loss (SL) after 3 and 5 days of cycling. Data were analysed using three-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) (factors: abrasive/filament stiffness/time), with separate analyses conducted for enamel and dentin.
For enamel, only 'cycling time' was found to affect SL, with 5 days of cycling resulting in a greater SL than 3 days of cycling. Overall, there was little SL for enamel (range: 0.76-1.85 μm). For dentin (SL range: 1.87-5.91 μm), significantly higher SL was found for 5 days of cycling versus 3 days of cycling, with particularly large differences for hard stiffness/high-level abrasive and medium stiffness/low-level abrasive. For high-level abrasive, after 5 days of cycling hard stiffness resulted in significantly higher SL than did medium stiffness, with no other significant differences according to stiffness. Overall, high-level abrasive resulted in significantly higher SL than did low-level abrasive, with strong effects for all combinations, except medium stiffness after 5 days.
The interplay between abrasivity and filament stiffness appears to be more relevant for dentin than for enamel.
研究牙膏中磨料与牙刷丝硬度之间的相互作用对牙釉质和牙本质表面的损耗。
本研究采用 2(高/低水平磨料;二氧化硅)×3(丝硬度;软、中、硬)×2(循环时间;3 天或 5 天)析因设计。抛光的牛牙釉质和牙本质标本(每组 8 个标本)经历 5 天的侵蚀/磨损循环:侵蚀(5 分钟,每日 4 次,0.3%柠檬酸,pH 值 3.75);磨损(15 秒,每日 2 次,每次 45 次,150 克负载,自动刷牙机);氟化物处理[磨损时 15 秒,不磨损时 45 秒;含氟量 275ppm(F),以氟化钠(NaF)形式存在于磨料浆中]。在侵蚀和磨损/F 处理之间(1 小时)和所有其他时间(过夜),牙釉质和牙本质标本暴露于人工唾液中。使用非接触式轮廓仪在 3 天和 5 天的循环后测量表面损失(SL)。使用三因素方差分析(ANOVA)(因素:磨料/丝硬度/时间)对数据进行分析,并分别对牙釉质和牙本质进行分析。
对于牙釉质,仅“循环时间”被发现影响 SL,5 天的循环导致的 SL 大于 3 天的循环。总的来说,牙釉质的 SL 很小(范围:0.76-1.85μm)。对于牙本质(SL 范围:1.87-5.91μm),5 天的循环导致的 SL 明显高于 3 天的循环,硬丝硬度/高水平磨料和中丝硬度/低水平磨料的差异尤其大。对于高水平磨料,硬丝硬度在 5 天的循环后导致的 SL 明显高于中丝硬度,而根据丝硬度没有其他显著差异。总的来说,高水平磨料导致的 SL 明显高于低水平磨料,除了 5 天后的中丝硬度外,所有组合都有很强的影响。
磨料的磨蚀性和丝硬度之间的相互作用似乎对牙本质比牙釉质更重要。