Objective: The aim of this study was to examine and evaluate the form of filaments of four manuel orthodontic toothbrushes by stereomicroscope analysis. The existing literature lacks findings on the end morphology of orthodontic toothbrush bristles. Material and Methods: Eight samples from four different orthodontic toothbrush brands (Glimo Orthodontic Oral Care, Pearldent Ortho, Tepe Implant Orthodontic, Curoprox Ortho) were collected. After determining tuft numbers, two tufts from each toothrush head from the opposite sides collected by using a carbon disk and filaments from each sample were attached on a bristle paper with transparent tape. A total of 16 tufts were independently evaluated by an observer using a stereomicroscope (Zeiss Stemi 508, Germany) at 8x magnification. Bristle end morphologies were classified as acceptable and non-acceptable according to the Silverstone and Featherstone scale. Pearson's chi-square test was employed to analyze differences between toothbrush types. In instances where the estimated values did not reach sufficient levels, Monte Carlo simulation was used. The level of statistical significance was set at 0.05. Results: The bristle ends morphologies of Glimo and Pearldent toothbrushes were found to be 100% non-acceptable. There was a significant difference between toothbrush brands in terms of the distribution of bristle tip morphologies. (p=0.000). Specifically, 75.6% of Tepe brand filaments were deemed acceptable, while Curaprox exhibited an acceptable filament percentage of 48.2%. Conclusion: Among the evaluated toothbrush brands, Tepe emerged as the most acceptable orthodontic toothbrush, with 75.6% of filaments meeting the acceptable criteria. Conversely, Glimo and Pearldent displayed no acceptable bristle tip morphology.
Keywords: Orthodontic appliances; toothbrushing; microscopy
Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, 4 adet manuel ortodontik diş fırçasının filament formlarının stereo mikroskop analizi ile incelenerek değerlendirilmesidir. Güncel literatür taramasına göre; ortodontik diş fırçalarının kıl ucu morfolojisine dair bulgu yer almamaktadır. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Dört farklı ortodontik diş fırçası markasından (Glimo, Ortodontik Ağız Bakım, Pearldent Orto, Tepe İmplant Ortodontik, Curaprox Ortho) sekiz örnek toplandı. Demet sayıları belirlendikten sonra karbon disk kullanılarak her bir diş fırçalama başından karşılıklı ikişer demet toplandı ve her numuneden gelen filamentler şeffaf bantla Bristol kâğıdı üzerine yapıştırıldı. Toplam 16 demet stereo mikroskop (Zeiss Stemi 508, Almanya) kullanılarak 8x büyütmede bir gözlemci tarafından bağımsız olarak değerlendirildi. Kıl ucu morfolojileri Silverstone ve Featherstone sınıflandırmasına göre kabul edilebilir ve kabul edilemez olarak değerlendirildi. Farklı diş fırçası türlerine ilişkin bulgular arasındaki farklılıklar Pearson ki-kare testi ile analiz edildi. Tahmin edilen değerlerin yeterince büyük olmadığı durumlarda Monte Carlo simülasyonu kullanıldı. İstatistiksel anlamlılık düzeyi 0,05 olarak tanımlandı. Bulgular: Glimo ve Pearldent diş fırçalarının kıl ucu morfolojileri %100 kabul edilemez bulunmuştur. Kıl ucu morfolojilerinin dağılımı açısından diş fırçası markaları arasında anlamlı fark vardı (p=0,000). Buna göre; Tepe markasında filamentin %75,6'sı kabul edilebilir, Curaprox'ta %48,2 filament kabul edilebilir olarak bulunmuştur. Sonuç: İncelenen diş fırçası markaları arasından %75,6 kabul edilebilirlik oran ile en kabul edilebilir diş fırçası markası Tepe oldu. Diğer taraftan, Glimo ve Pearldent için kabul edilebilir kıl ucu morfolojisi görülmedi.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Ortodontik gereçler; diş fırçalama; mikroskopi
- Anuwongnukroh N, Dechkunakorn S, Kanpiputana R. Oral hygiene behavior during fixed orthodontic treatment. Dentistry. 2017;7(10):1-5. [Crossref]
- Bishara SE, Ostby AW. White spot lesions: formation, prevention, and treatment. Semin Orthod. 2008;14(3):174-82. [Link]
- Telatar GY, Telatar BC. Oral health status after orthodontic treatment: a retrospective study. Odovtos-International Journal of Dental Sciences. 2021;147-54. [Link]
- Davis SM, Plonka AB, Fulks BA, Taylor KL, Bashutski J. Consequences of orthodontic treatment on periodontal health: clinical and microbial effects. Semin Orthod. 2014;20(3):139-49. [Crossref]
- Bardal PAP, Olympio KPK, Bastos JR de M, Henriques JFC, Buzalaf MAR. Education and motivation in oral health-preventing disease and promoting health in patients undergoing orthodontic treatment. Dental Press J Orthod. 2011;16(3):95-102. [Crossref]
- ElShehaby M, Mofti B, Montasser MA, Bearn D. Powered vs manual tooth brushing in patients with fixed orthodontic appliances: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2020;158(5):639-49. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Mehta S, Vyaasini CVS, Jindal L, Sharma V, Jasuja T. Toothbrush, its design and modifications: an overview. Journal of Curr Med Res Opin. 2020;3(08):570-8. [Crossref]
- Gundavarapu KC, Ramachandra SS, Dicksit DD. An investigation into toothbrush wear related to months of use among university students. Can J Dent Hyg. 2015;49(2):76-80. [Link]
- Toshniwal SH, Reche A, Bajaj P, Maloo LM. Status quo in mechanical plaque control then and now: a review. Cureus. 2022;14(8):e28613. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- ADA. American Dental Association (ADA) Seal of Acceptance. 2022. (Accessed 10 Sep 2023) [Link]
- Levrini L, Di Benedetto G, Raspanti M. Dental wear: a scanning electron microscope study. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:340425. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Silverstone LM, Featherstone MJ. Examination of the end rounding pattern of toothbrush bristles using scanning electron microscopy: a comparison of eight toothbrush types. Gerodontics. 1988;4(2):45-62. [PubMed]
- Rafe Z, Vardimon A, Ashkenazi M. Comparative study of 3 types of toothbrushes in patients with fixed orthodontic appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006;130(1):92-5. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Kiliçoğlu H, Yildirim M, Polater H. Comparison of the effectiveness of two types of toothbrushes on the oral hygiene of patients undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1997;111(6):591-4. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Gomes LK, Sarmento CF, Seabra FR, Santos PB, Pinheiro FH. Randomized clinical controlled trial on the effectiveness of conventional and orthodontic manual toothbrushes. Braz Oral Res. 2012;26(4):360-5. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Hamza B, Svellenti L, Körner P, Attin T, Wegehaupt FJ. Effect of tapered-end and round-end bristles on the abrasive dentine wear applying increasing brushing forces. Acta Odontol Scand. 2022;80(6):465-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Slot DE, Wiggelinkhuizen L, Rosema NA, Van der Weijden GA. The efficacy of manual toothbrushes following a brushing exercise: a systematic review. Int J Dent Hyg. 2012;10(3):187-97. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Farook FF, Alrumi A, Aldalaan K, Ababneh K, Alshammari A, Al-Khamees AA, et al. The efficacy of manual toothbrushes in patients with fixed orthodontic appliances: a randomized clinical trial. BMC Oral Health. 2023;23(1):315. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Parizotto SP, Rodrigues CR, Singer Jda M, Sef HC. Effectiveness of low cost toothbrushes, with or without dentifrice, in the removal of bacterial plaque in deciduous teeth. Pesqui Odontol Bras. 2003;17(1):17-23. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Claydon NC. Current concepts in toothbrushing and interdental cleaning. Periodontol 2000. 2008;48:10-22. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Turgut MD, Keçeli TI, Tezel B, Cehreli ZC, Dolgun A, Tekçiçek M. Number, length and end-rounding quality of bristles in manual child and adult toothbrushes. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2011;21(3):232-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Franchi M, Checchi L. Temperature dependence of toothbrush bristle morphology. An ultrastructural study. J Clin Periodontol. 1995;22(8):655-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Jung M, Koçkapan C, Wetzel WE. Bristle end rounding of manual toothbrushes and reproducibility of end rounding classification. Am J Dent. 2003;16(5):299-304. [PubMed]
.: Process List