Suppr超能文献

不同手动牙刷和刷牙负荷对牙齿酸蚀磨损的相互作用。

Interplay between different manual toothbrushes and brushing loads on erosive tooth wear.

机构信息

Department of Clinic, University Center of State of Para, School of Dentistry, Tv. 9 de Janeiro 927, Belém, PA, 66060-080, Brazil.

Department of Restorative Dentistry, University of São Paulo, School of Dentistry, Av. Prof. Lineu Prestes 2227, Cidade Universitária, São Paulo, SP, 05508-000, Brazil.

出版信息

J Dent. 2021 Feb;105:103577. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2020.103577. Epub 2020 Dec 31.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effect of different types of manual toothbrushes and brushing loads on the progression of erosive tooth wear (ETW) on enamel.

METHODS

Bovine enamel specimens (n = 10) were submitted to a 5-day erosive-abrasive cycling model (0.3 % citric acid for 5 min, artificial saliva for 60 min, 4x/day). Toothbrushing was carried out 2x/day for 15 s, according to the toothbrushes tested (ultra-soft (a): Curaprox 5460; ultra-soft (b): Sensodyne Repair & Protect; soft (a): Colgate Slim Soft; soft (b): Oral-B Indicator Plus; medium: Johnson's Professional; hard: Tek) and brushing loads (1.5 N, 3 N). Surface loss (SL, in μm) was assessed by optical profilometry on conclusion of the cycling. Some of the toothbrush characteristics were evaluated. Data were statistically analyzed (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

For the 1.5 N load, the hard brush showed the highest SL value, with statistical significance. The other toothbrushes did not differ significantly, except that ultra-soft (a) caused significantly higher SL than ultra-soft (b). For the 3 N load, hard and soft (a) exhibited the highest SL. Soft (b) and medium had the lowest SL value, with statistical significance. Only soft (a) and ultra-soft (b) showed significant difference between loads, with lower SL for the load of 1.5 N. None of the toothbrush characteristics were significantly correlated with SL.

CONCLUSIONS

Although different degrees of enamel surface loss were observed with use of the different toothbrushes, no association was found between the toothbrush characteristics and SL. Depending on the toothbrush, the force of brushing was capable of modulating the ETW of enamel. Based on the brushing loads usually applied by healthy individuals, hard brushes are not recommended for use by patients with ETW.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The use of hard bristle brushes is not recommended for use by individuals who exert healthy forces when brushing their teeth. The toothbrush characteristics are of secondary importance in terms of causing enamel loss in ETW.

摘要

目的

研究不同类型手动牙刷和刷牙负荷对釉质腐蚀性牙齿磨损(ETW)进展的影响。

方法

将牛牙釉质标本(n=10)置于 5 天腐蚀性磨蚀循环模型中(0.3%柠檬酸 5 分钟,人工唾液 60 分钟,每天 4 次)。根据测试的牙刷(超软(a):Curaprox 5460;超软(b):Sensodyne Repair & Protect;软(a):Colgate Slim Soft;软(b):Oral-B Indicator Plus;中硬:Johnson's Professional;硬:Tek)和刷牙负荷(1.5 N,3 N),每天刷牙两次,每次 15 秒。循环结束后,通过光学轮廓仪评估表面损失(SL,以μm 计)。评估了一些牙刷特性。对数据进行了统计学分析(α=0.05)。

结果

对于 1.5 N 的负荷,硬刷显示出最高的 SL 值,具有统计学意义。其他牙刷之间没有显著差异,但超软(a)的 SL 值明显高于超软(b)。对于 3 N 的负荷,硬刷和软刷(a)显示出最高的 SL。软刷(b)和中硬刷具有最低的 SL 值,具有统计学意义。只有软刷(a)和超软(b)在两种负荷之间显示出显著差异,1.5 N 负荷时 SL 值较低。牙刷特性与 SL 之间没有显著相关性。

结论

尽管使用不同的牙刷观察到了不同程度的牙釉质表面损失,但没有发现牙刷特性与 SL 之间存在关联。根据牙刷的不同,刷牙的力度能够调节牙釉质的 ETW。基于健康个体通常应用的刷牙负荷,不建议 ETW 患者使用硬毛牙刷。

临床意义

对于健康刷牙力度的个体,不建议使用硬毛牙刷。在 ETW 导致牙釉质损失方面,牙刷特性的重要性较低。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验