IADR Abstract Archives
Effects of Cosmetic and Conventional Dentifrices on Dental Materials
Objectives: Toothbrush abrasion may cause significant roughness, depth loss and gloss changes on tooth structure and dental restorations, over time. Greater differences produced amongst substrates may negatively affect the tooth-restoration interface, thus, leading to compromised marginal integrity, staining, and plaque accumulation. The purpose of this study was to compare differences in the surface roughness (Ra), amount of depth loss (DL) and gloss units (GU) as a result of brushing with a cosmetic dentifrice versus current dentifrice on dental substrates.
Methods: Twenty-four samples of each ACTIVA (AR), Esthet-X (EX), e.max (EM), VITA Mark II (VM), dentin (relative control) and enamel (relative control) were mounted, polished and randomly grouped (n=8/3gp) according to dentifrice: Arm & Hammer (AH), Myntsmile (MS) or Crest Pro-Health (CPH). Samples were brushed for 10,000-cycles (rotated every 2,500-cycles) at 350-g of force in a homogenized solution of DI water and dentifrice. Pre- and post-brushing data were measured with a contact profilometer and gloss meter for Ra, DL and GU data and were compared independently for each measurement using a two-way ANOVA SNK (p<0.05).
Results: Table below presents differences in Ra, DL and GU results.
Conclusions: Results for dentin in Ra and DL disclosed significant difference as compared with all other dental substrates tested for each dentifrice. CPH versus MS, were significantly different for dentin and Esthet-X in Ra and DL. Statistical analysis of DL for ACTIVA and e.max revealed difference when comparing CPH versus MS. Changes on ceramics were not significant for Ra with any dentifrice treatment and were only marginally increased for DL with CPH on e.max. Protocol used in this study was worse-case brushing force; nevertheless, MS increased GU and resulted in minimal RA and DL, unlike CPH. Therefore, a dentifrice may enhance or limit undesirable surface changes on dental restorative materials.
Methods: Twenty-four samples of each ACTIVA (AR), Esthet-X (EX), e.max (EM), VITA Mark II (VM), dentin (relative control) and enamel (relative control) were mounted, polished and randomly grouped (n=8/3gp) according to dentifrice: Arm & Hammer (AH), Myntsmile (MS) or Crest Pro-Health (CPH). Samples were brushed for 10,000-cycles (rotated every 2,500-cycles) at 350-g of force in a homogenized solution of DI water and dentifrice. Pre- and post-brushing data were measured with a contact profilometer and gloss meter for Ra, DL and GU data and were compared independently for each measurement using a two-way ANOVA SNK (p<0.05).
Results: Table below presents differences in Ra, DL and GU results.
Conclusions: Results for dentin in Ra and DL disclosed significant difference as compared with all other dental substrates tested for each dentifrice. CPH versus MS, were significantly different for dentin and Esthet-X in Ra and DL. Statistical analysis of DL for ACTIVA and e.max revealed difference when comparing CPH versus MS. Changes on ceramics were not significant for Ra with any dentifrice treatment and were only marginally increased for DL with CPH on e.max. Protocol used in this study was worse-case brushing force; nevertheless, MS increased GU and resulted in minimal RA and DL, unlike CPH. Therefore, a dentifrice may enhance or limit undesirable surface changes on dental restorative materials.