Department of Biomedical and Applied Sciences Works

Permanent URI for this collection

https://hdl.handle.net/1805/3966

Browse

Browsing Department of Biomedical and Applied Sciences Works by Subject "abrasion"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Interaction between toothpaste abrasivity and toothbrush filament stiffness on the development of erosiveabrasive lesions in vitro
    (Wiley, 2017) Lippert, Frank; Arrageg, Mona A.; Eckert, George J.; Hara, Anderson T.; Department of Cariology, Operative Dentistry and Dental Public Health, School of Dentistry
    Objectives To investigate the loss of enamel and dentin surface caused by the interaction between abrasives in toothpaste and toothbrush filament stiffness. Methods The study followed a 2 (high-level or low-level abrasive; silica) × 3 (filament stiffness; soft, medium or hard) × 2 (cycling time; 3 or 5 days) factorial design. Polished bovine enamel and dentin specimens (n = 8 each per group) were subjected to 5 days of erosion/abrasion cycling: erosion (5 minutes, four times daily, 0.3% citric acid, pH 3.75); abrasion (15 seconds, twice daily, 45 strokes each, 150 g load, automated brushing machine); and fluoride treatment [15 seconds with abrasion and 45 seconds without abrasion; 275 p.p.m. fluoride (F−) as sodium fluoride (NaF) in abrasive slurry]. Enamel and dentin specimens were exposed to artificial saliva between erosion and abrasion/F− treatment (1 hour) and at all other times (overnight). Non-contact profilometry was used to determine surface loss (SL) after 3 and 5 days of cycling. Data were analysed using three-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) (factors: abrasive/filament stiffness/time), with separate analyses conducted for enamel and dentin. Results For enamel, only ‘cycling time’ was found to affect SL, with 5 days of cycling resulting in a greater SL than 3 days of cycling. Overall, there was little SL for enamel (range: 0.76–1.85 μm). For dentin (SL range: 1.87–5.91 μm), significantly higher SL was found for 5 days of cycling versus 3 days of cycling, with particularly large differences for hard stiffness/high-level abrasive and medium stiffness/low-level abrasive. For high-level abrasive, after 5 days of cycling hard stiffness resulted in significantly higher SL than did medium stiffness, with no other significant differences according to stiffness. Overall, high-level abrasive resulted in significantly higher SL than did low-level abrasive, with strong effects for all combinations, except medium stiffness after 5 days. Conclusion The interplay between abrasivity and filament stiffness appears to be more relevant for dentin than for enamel.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    The impact of mouth rinses on the efficacy of fluoride dentifrices in preventing enamel and dentin erosion/abrasion
    (Discovery Scientific Society, 2023-11) Albeshir, Ebtehal G.; Albluwi, Reem A.; Almubarak, Ibtisam K.; Alrabea, Abdulmohsen; Cook, Norman B.; Eckert, George J.; Hara, Anderson T.; Lippert, Frank; Biomedical and Applied Sciences, School of Dentistry
    Purpose: Toothbrushing followed by is a method to maintain good oral hygiene. It is unknown to what extent mouth rinses can modulate the effect of fluoride in its ability to prevent erosion/abrasion. The aim of this in vitro study was to investigate the impact of chlorhexidine (CHX), essential oils (EO), and cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) mouth rinses on erosive tooth wear protection afforded by conventional fluoride toothpaste. Methodology: The following experimental factors were considered: Five rinses: CHX, EO, CPC, a fluoride rinse, and water, two fluoride toothpaste: stannous fluoride (SnF2), sodium fluoride (NaF), and two models: erosion only and erosion + abrasion. Bovine enamel and dentin slabs were embedded in resin blocks (n=8). Specimens were subjected to a five-day cycling regimen consisting of twicedaily treatments, with or without abrasion, with fluoride toothpaste, followed by mouth rinse exposure. Erosion (0.3% citric acid) was performed 5×/d. Specimens were exposed to artificial saliva during remineralization periods. Surface loss (SL) was determined using non-contact profilometry. Data were analyzed using ANOVA (=0.05). Results: There was no interaction among the three factors (type of toothpaste, mouth rinse, and abrasion or not). There were no significant two-way interactions, as SL was only affected by toothpaste and mouth rinse. NaF caused less SL than SnF2 (p<0.0001) in dentin, whereas the opposite was found in enamel (p<0.0001). Erosion + abrasion caused more SL than erosion only (p<0.0001). None of the tested mouth rinses affected SL. Conclusion: Commonly used mouth rinses do not impair the erosion/abrasion protection fluoride toothpaste provides.