ArticleCureus2024
In Vitro Analysis of Enamel Abrasion Using a Novel Manual Nano-Bristle Toothbrush: An Atomic Force Microscopy Study.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTo evaluate the enamel abrasion effects of soft, ultra-soft, and nano-bristle toothbrushes using atomic force microscopy (AFM) to guide toothbrush selection for optimal enamel preservation.
methodsThis in vitro study involved 45 extracted human teeth (central and lateral incisors), randomly assigned to three groups (n=15 each): Group I (nano-bristle), Group II (ultra-soft bristle), and Group III (soft bristle). Each specimen underwent 10,000 brushing cycles with a standardized 2 N force to simulate one year of brushing. A slurry of commercially available toothpaste mixed with saline was applied, and brushing was performed with a mechanical brushing simulator. AFM analysis measured enamel surface roughness before and after brushing.
resultsNano-bristle toothbrushes caused a minimal increase in surface roughness (mean change: 4 nm; p = 0.001), significantly less than the increases seen with soft (mean change: 14.08 nm; p = 0.001) and ultra-soft (mean change: 14.86 nm; p = 0.001) bristle toothbrushes. AFM analysis confirmed that both soft and ultra-soft bristles caused greater enamel abrasion compared to nano-bristles, with no significant difference between soft and ultra-soft bristle groups.
conclusionNano-bristle toothbrushes demonstrated the least enamel abrasion in this study, suggesting they may provide a gentle alternative for preserving enamel integrity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.