ArticlePloS one2025
An in vitro study on dentin abrasion comparing two sonic toothbrushes with and without a coating versus an ADA reference manual toothbrush.
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This in vitro study evaluated dentin abrasion and surface roughness caused by two sonic toothbrushes with different filament coatings compared with those caused by a standard ADA reference manual toothbrush. Standardized dentin samples (n = 8 per group) were prepared from bovine incisors, embedded in acrylic blocks, polished, and hardness-verified using the Vickers method. A central brushing area was created by masking two reference zones with adhesive tape. Brushing simulations were performed in a laboratory device for 10,000 cycles at a load of 1.5 N using a toothpaste slurry (RDA 129) that was prepared at a 1:1.6 water-to-paste ratio. The tested toothbrushes included the ADA reference manual toothbrush (uncoated nylon filaments), the Curaprox Hydrosonic Pro toothbrush (uncoated PBT filaments), and the Curaprox Hydrosonic Black is White toothbrush (charcoal-coated PBT filaments). Dentin loss was measured by noncontact optical profilometry, and surface roughness was assessed by determining the Ra, Rq and Sa values. Data normality was verified using the Shapiro-Wilk test, and differences among groups were analyzed by one-way ANOVA with Bonferroni correction (α = 0.05). Compared with the ADA reference manual toothbrush, both the sonic toothbrushes caused significantly greater dentin loss (p < 0.001), with no significant difference between the sonic models (p > 0.05). The changes in roughness followed a similar pattern. These findings suggest that, under standardized laboratory conditions, sonic toothbrushes, regardless of the use of a filament coating, cause more dentin wear than a manual reference brush. Moreover, greater dentin abrasion was associated with less roughness, indicating an inverse relationship between tissue loss and surface roughness.
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.