Automatic toothbrush: a new reciprocating action

Phaneuf, Edgar A.; Harrington, John H.; Dale, Peter P.; Shklar, Gerald

doi:10.14219/jada.archive.1962.0187

Cited by 70 publications

(71 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Numerous peer review papers have cited abrasion, with circumstantial evidence indicating toothbrushing with a paste, as the main aetiological cause of dentin wear [70–72, 79, 103]. However, whilst radicular dentin wear from overzealous toothbrushing may be solely responsible for a small percentage of dentin hypersensitivity cases [104], it is likely that erosive components exacerbate the condition, resulting in tissue loss and tubular opening [105].…”

Section: Lesion Localisationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although the abrasivity of toothbrushing alone to enamel is almost certainly negligible, and minimal to dentin, features of the toothbrush head and filament stiffness can modify the abrasivity of toothpastes [107, 108] and force of brushing [109] in a normal twice-a-day brushing regimen in vitro studies [95, 103, 105, 110]. In contrast, toothpaste has great potential to harm the dental hard tissues by virtue of its degree of abrasivity.…”

Section: Lesion Localisationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Reviews suggest that there is no difference in hard tooth tissue abrasion between electric or manual brushes using a toothpaste [80]. This is due to electric brushes using less force than manual brushes [80, 103]. An alternative explanation is that the rapid head and/or filament actions of electric brushes may quickly dislodge the toothpaste from the brush head [88].…”

Section: Lesion Localisationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Dentin hypersensitivity: pain mechanisms and aetiology of exposed cervical dentin

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesThe paper’s aim is to review dentin hypersensitivity (DHS), discussing pain mechanisms and aetiology.Materials and methodsLiterature was reviewed using search engines with MESH terms, DH pain mechanisms and aetiology (including abrasion, erosion and periodontal disease).ResultsThe many hypotheses proposed for DHS attest to our lack of knowledge in understanding neurophysiologic mechanisms, the most widely accepted being the hydrodynamic theory. Dentin tubules must be patent from the oral environment to the pulp. Dentin exposure, usually at the cervical margin, is due to a variety of processes involving gingival recession or loss of enamel, predisposing factors being periodontal disease and treatment, limited alveolar bone, thin biotype, erosion and abrasion.ConclusionsThe current pain mechanism of DHS is thought to be the hydrodynamic theory. The initiation and progression of DHS are influenced by characteristics of the teeth and periodontium as well as the oral environment and external influences. Risk factors are numerous often acting synergistically and always influenced by individual susceptibility.Clinical relevanceWhilst the pain mechanism of DHS is not well understood, clinicians need to be mindful of the aetiology and risk factors in order to manage patients’ pain and expectations and prevent further dentin exposure with subsequent sensitivity.

show abstract

Section: Lesion Localisationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Lesion Localisationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Lesion Localisationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Dentin hypersensitivity: pain mechanisms and aetiology of exposed cervical dentin

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The tooth brushing forces with a manual toothbrush have been reported with wide range (1.6N-318g) in many studies [27][28][29]. However, gender differences of brushing force has been controversially discussed.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender difference of tooth brushing motion and force on self-brushing and caregivers' brushing in dental professionals

Hanasaki¹,

Nakakura-Ohshima²,

Nakajima³

et al. 2018

Dent Oral Craniofac Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While the need for caregivers' brushing have increased, the appropriate brushing motion is still unclear. The aim of this study was to clarify the gender difference of brushing motions between self-brushing and caregivers' brushing.Tooth brushing motions of 15 male and 20 female dental professionals were analyzed using a three-dimensional accelerometer and a strain tension gage. They brushed the buccal surfaces of the right lower molars using two brushing situations. Multilevel model analysis was applied in this study.Concerning self-brushing, gender difference was significant in cycle duration, buccal-lingual motion and brushing force, whereas for caregivers' brushing, a significant difference was observed only in the brushing force. In addition, the brushing force during caregivers' brushing was significantly greater than that of self-brushing on both genders.This study clearly demonstrated gender difference of brushing motion and force. Furthermore, a significant difference between self-brushing and caregivers' brushing was also evident. These results might contribute to improving the caregivers' brushing.

show abstract

“…Load and brushing speed used in the tests were based on reported measurements taken during in vivo experiments [18,19]. A load of 225g was used with a sliding speed of 30mm/s.…”

Section: Specimens and Operating Conditionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Particle motion and stain removal during simulated abrasive tooth cleaning

Lewis

Barber

Dwyer-Joyce

2007

Wear

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Stain removal from teeth is important both to prevent decay and for appearance. This is usually achieved using a filament based tooth with a toothpaste consisting of abrasive particles in a carrier fluid. This work has been carried out to examine how these abrasive particles interact with the filaments and cause material removal from a stain layer on the surface of a tooth. It is important to understand this mechanism as while maximum cleaning efficiency is required, this must not be accompanied by damage to the enamel or dentine substrate.In this work simple abrasive scratch tests were used to investigate stain removal mechanism of two abrasive particles commonly used in tooth cleaning, silica and perlite. Silica particles are granular in shape and very different to perlite particles, which are flat and have thicknesses many times smaller than their width.Initially visualisation studies were carried out with perlite particles to study how they are entrained into a filament/counterface contact. Results were compared with previous studies using silica. Reciprocating scratch tests were then run to study how many filaments have a particle trapped at one moment and are involved in the cleaning process. Stain removal tests were then carried out in a similar manner to establish cleaning rates with the two particle types. Perlite particles were found to be less abrasive than silica. This was because of their shape and how they were entrained into the filament contacts and loaded against a counterface. With both particles subsurface damage during stain removal was found to be minimal.A simple model was built to predict stain removal rates with silica particles, which gave results that correlated well with the experimental data.

show abstract

Automatic toothbrush: a new reciprocating action

Cited by 70 publications

References 4 publications

Dentin hypersensitivity: pain mechanisms and aetiology of exposed cervical dentin

Dentin hypersensitivity: pain mechanisms and aetiology of exposed cervical dentin

Gender difference of tooth brushing motion and force on self-brushing and caregivers' brushing in dental professionals

Particle motion and stain removal during simulated abrasive tooth cleaning

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About