Surface Roughness Effects of a Power Verses a Manual Toothbrush

Objectives: To measure the surface roughness effects of a new power toothbrush on dental materials as compared to a manual toothbrush.
Methods: Two commercial toothbrushes were evaluated: Colgate® ProClinical™ C600 Power Toothbrush (PT) with distinct multi-directional cleaning action and Oral B® Indicator Soft Regular (MT). Human enamel, dentin, amalgam (Dispersalloy), composite (Esthet•Xflow Liquid Microhybrid), and gold (IDENTALLOY) were mounted in acrylic blocks. Baseline roughness was taken using a stylus profilometer (Surftest SJ-400) following polishing of the material. Three readings for each sample were averaged. Samples were divided into two treatment groups (n=8) and brushed with PT or MT. Each surface was brushed for 10,000 strokes to simulate 1yr of brushing (150g of pressure for ETB, 250g of pressure for MTB) using a toothpaste slurry (Colgate Cavity Protection®) on a V8 tooth-brushing machine. The slurry consisted of 25g of toothpaste and 40g of deionized water. After brushing, all samples were rinsed with deionized water and average post-brushing surface roughness values were obtained. ANOVA was used to analyze the differences between the two toothbrushes overall and within each dental material.
Results: The p-value>0.05 between PT and MT on all materials. In addition, p>0.05 between the PT and MT for each individual material.
Conclusions: There is no significant difference between the Colgate® ProClinical™ C600 Power Toothbrush and a manual toothbrush on the surface roughness of common dental materials after brushing for a simulated year.