English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Objective  The aim of this study was to evaluate the susceptibility of dentin to brushing abrasion using four different toothbrushes (rotating-oscillating, sonic and two types of manual toothbrushes) with the same brushing forces.    Methods  Dentin samples (n = 72) were selected from 72 impacted third molars. Half of the surface of dentin samples was covered with an adhesive tape, creating a protected and a freely exposed area in the same specimen. Brushing was performed with either a: sonic (Sonicare PowerUp, Philips GmbH, Hamburg, Germany), b: oscillating-rotating (Oral B Vitality Precisions Clean, Procter & Gamble, Schwalbach am Taunus, Germany) or two different manual toothbrushes c: flat trim brush head toothbrush (Dr. Best: Original, Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Bühl, Germany) and d: rippled-shaped brush head toothbrush (Blend-a-Dent, Complete V-Interdental, Blend-a-med, Schwalbach, Germany) in a custom made automatic brushing machine. The brushing force was set to 2 N and a whitening toothpaste (RDA = 150) was used. The simulation period was performed over a calculated period to mimic a brushing behavior of two times a day brushing for eight years and six months. Dentin loss was quantitatively determined by profilometry and statistically analyzed by Wilcoxon and Mann-Whitney-U Test (p < 0.05).    Results  The mean (standard deviation) surface loss was 21.03 (±1.26) μm for the sonic toothbrush, 15.71 (±0.85) μm for the oscillating-rotating toothbrush, 6.13 (±1.24) μm for the manual toothbrush with flat trim brush head and 2.50 (±0.43) μm for the manual toothbrush with rippled-shaped brush head. Differences between all groups were statistically significant at p<0.05.    Conclusion  Using the same brushing force and a highly abrasive toothpaste, manual toothbrushes are significantly less abrasive compared to power toothbrushes for an 8.5—year simulation.

Toothbrush abrasivity in a long-term simulation on human dentin depends on brushing mode and bristle arrangement