Evaluation of a Power Toothbrush for Surface Roughness Effects

Objective: Evaluate the effects of an electric toothbrush on the surface roughness of dental surfaces and restorative materials.  Methods: The Colgate^® ProClinical^™ A1500 ETB was compared to the Oral B^® Indicator Soft Regular (MTB) for surface roughness after brushing on human enamel and dentin, amalgam (Dispersalloy), a micro hybrid composite (ProFil), and gold (yellow crown and bridge gold).  Materials were prepared in acrylic blocks or cured in block forms.  Surfaces were polished and baseline roughness was taken using stylus profilometer (Surftest SJ-400). Three readings were obtained for each sample and averaged to obtain baseline values.  Samples were evenly divided into two treatment groups. Group 1 was brushed with ETB and Triple Clean Head while Group 2 was brushed with MTB, using a brushing machine.  Each surface was brushed for to represent one year’s simulated brushing (150 grams of pressure for ETB, 250 grams of pressure for MTB) using a toothpaste slurry (Colgate Cavity Protection^®).  The slurry was prepared by mixing 25 grams of toothpaste with 40 grams of deionized water.  After brushing, all samples were rinsed with deionized water and post-brushing surface roughness values were obtained. Three readings were obtained and averaged.

Results: 

	Baseline Ra  Mean	Post-Brushing Ra Mean	Change in Ra  (Mean)	Change in Ra  (SD)
Electric Toothbrush
Amalgam	0.551	0.604	0.054	0.212
Composite	0.208	0.393	0.184	0.139
Gold	0.376	0.102	-0.274	0.079
Enamel	1.470	1.592	0.123	1.086
Dentin	0.419	0.480	0.061	0.072
Manual Toothbrush
Amalgam	0.444	0.440	-0.004	0.161
Composite	0.257	0.446	0.189	0.151
Gold	0.435	0.191	-0.244	0.115
Enamel	1.253	1.469	0.216	0.788
Dentin	0.352	0.351	-0.001	0.039

Conclusion: The results of this study indicate  that the ETB does not significantly affect the surface roughness of dental materials used after tooth brushing for a simulated one year period of time.