ArticleJournal of clinical and experimental dentistry2025
Bristle splaying and abrasive potential of different toothbrushes on the enamel and resin composite after brushing simulation.
Article in Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Toothbrush bristle type and toothpaste effect on surface gloss and microstructure of resin composites and zirconia.Bioinformation · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Correct oral physiotherapy using toothbrushes is essential for mechanically removing biofilms to reduce caries and periodontal disease, but ideal toothbrush parameters have not yet been fully defined. The aim of this study was to evaluate the bristle splaying and abrasive potential of different toothbrushes on enamel and resin composites after simulated brushing for 30, 90, and 180 days. Material and Methods: Seventy bovine flat tooth crowns containing a circular cavity on the enamel were restored using a resin composite (Forma, Ultradent) and brushed for 30, 90, and 180 days using seven toothbrushes (n = 10): Colorcare (Bianco Oral Care), Delicare (Bianco), Carbon-Magnetherapy (Bianco Oral Care), SlimSoft Advanced (Colgate), Pro Cuidado (Colgate), Curaprox CS5460 (Curaden), and Curaprox CS3960 (Curaden). The enamel and resin composite surface roughness (Ra) were evaluated at baseline and after brushing. The wear index and wear rate were evaluated using macrophotography and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Data were analyzed using two-way repeated measurement analysis of variance and Kruskal Wallis followed by Tukey's and Duns tests (α = 0.05). Results: The Ra of the resin composite significantly increased after 30 (using SlimSoft), 90 (using SlimSoft, Pro Cuidado, and Carbon), and 180 days (using Colgate Pro Cuidado and CS3960; Conclusions: CS5460, Carbon, and SlimSoft exhibited higher bristle volumes, narrow filament diameters, and higher wear rates and wear indices with lower Ra alterations. The Ra of the resin composite after 180 days was significantly higher for Pro Cuidado and CS3960. Enamel Ra was significantly higher in Pro Cuidado.
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.