Journal of South Asian Association of Pediatric Dentistry

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  7 (2024)
Volume  6 (2023)
Volume  5 (2022)
Volume  4 (2021)
Volume  3 (2020)
Volume  2 (2019)
Volume  1 (2018)
Related articles

VOLUME 6 , ISSUE 3 ( September-December, 2023 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Comparative Evaluation of Abrasive Effect of Three Commercially Available Children's Toothpastes in India on Glass Ionomer Cement: An In Vitro Study

KS Poonacha, Saylee Deshmukh, Anshula N Deshpande, Sejal Jain, Riddhika Shah

Keywords : Abrasion, Children, Glass ionomer cement, Profilometer, Toothpastes

Citation Information : Poonacha K, Deshmukh S, Deshpande AN, Jain S, Shah R. Comparative Evaluation of Abrasive Effect of Three Commercially Available Children's Toothpastes in India on Glass Ionomer Cement: An In Vitro Study. J South Asian Assoc Pediatr Dent 2023; 6 (3):118-123.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10077-3283

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 30-12-2023

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2023; The Author(s).


Abstract

Background: The roughness of the surfaces of restorations increases after brushing of teeth, leading to an increase in the accumulation of plaque and stains, thus increasing the risk of dental caries formation. Aim: To compare and evaluate the abrasive effect of three different commercially available children's toothpastes on the surface properties of conventional restorative glass ionomer cement (GIC). Materials and methods: Around 40 samples were prepared using conventional GIC, which were divided equally into four groups containing 10 samples each which were subjected to toothbrushing using the test apparatus and different toothpastes for each group for a duration of 2 minutes twice daily for 15 days—group I—Colgate Anticavity toothpaste for kids; group II—Chicco Dentifrico Toothpaste; group III—Cheerio Fluoride Medicated Gel; and group IV—water. Intergroup and intragroup comparisons were made using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and paired sample t-tests, with p < 0.05. Results: After applying a procedure corresponding to about 1 year of toothbrushing in the mouth, positive results were obtained in terms of the abrasive effect caused by children's toothpastes on the surface of GIC restorations. The mean surface abrasion of GIC samples varied significantly between all groups at baseline and after brushing (p < 0.001). Among the toothpastes used, group II showed maximum increase in surface abrasion (31.76%), whereas group I showed the least (12.94%). Conclusion: Toothpaste-containing hydrated silica caused the most abrasion on surface of GIC. Children's toothpastes with low relative dentin abrasivity (RDA) value should be recommended in terms of causing low surface abrasion of the GIC restorations, thus reducing the plaque accumulation on the surface of the restoration.

HTML PDF Share
  1. Newman MG, Takei H, Klokkevold PR, et al. Carranza's Clinical Periodontology. Elsevier health sciences; 2011.
  2. International Standards Organization ISO 11609. Dentistry – toothpastes – requirements, test methods and marketing 2010.
  3. Athawale R, Srinath S, Chowdary C. Comparative evaluation of enamel abrasivity of different commercially available dentifrices - an in vitro study. J Ind Asso Publ Health Dentistr 2018;16:78. DOI: 10.4103/jiaphd.jiaphd_165_17
  4. Yılmaz N, Avci G, Ozkaya S, et al. Comparison of the abrasive effects of children's toothpaste on glass ionomer cement. Pediatr Dent J 2021. DOI: 10.1016/j.pdj.2021.02.002
  5. Johannsen G, Tellefsen G, Johannsen A, et al. The importance of measuring toothpaste abrasivity in both a quantitative and qualitative way. Acta Odontol Scand 2013;71(3-4):508–517. DOI: 10.3109/00016357.2012.696693
  6. Wiegand A, Burkhard JP, Eggmann F, et al. Brushing force of manual and sonic toothbrushes affects dental hard tissue abrasion. Clin Oral Investig 2013;17(3):815–822. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-012-0788-z
  7. Liljeborg A, Tellefsen G, Johannsen G. The use of a profilometer for both quantitative and qualitative measurements of toothpaste abrasivity. Int J Dent Hyg 2010;8(3):237–243. DOI: 10.1111/j.1601-5037.2009.00433.x
  8. Hunter ML, Addy M, Pickles MJ, et al. The role of toothpaste and toothbrushes in the aetiology of tooth wear. Int Dent J 2002;52: 399–405. DOI: 10.1111/j.1875-595X.2002.tb00729.x
  9. Addy M, Hunter ML. Can tooth brushing damage your health? Effects on oral and dental tissues. Int Dent J 2003;53(Suppl 3):177–186. DOI: 10.1111/j.1875-595x.2003.tb00768.x
  10. Tellefsen G, Liljeborg A, Johannsen A, et al. The role of the toothbrush in the abrasion process. Int J Dent Hyg 2011;9:284–290. DOI: 10.1111/j.1601-5037.2011.00505.x
  11. Stovell AG, Newton BM, Lynch RJ. Important considerations in the development of toothpaste formulations for children. Int Dent J 2013;63(Suppl 2):57–63. DOI: 10.1111/idj.12083
  12. Dudás C, Forgó Z, Kerekes-Máthé B. Surface roughness changes of different restoration materials after tooth brushing simulation using different toothpastes. J Interdiscip Med 2017;2(S1):21–24. DOI: 10.1515/jim-2017-0012
  13. Kumar S, Kumar Singh S, Gupta A, et al. A profilometric study to assess the role of toothbrush and toothpaste in abrasion process. J Dent (Shiraz) 2015;16(3 Suppl):267–273. PMID: 26535407.
  14. Hefferren JJ. A laboratory method for assessment of dentrifrice abrasivity. J Dent Res 1976;55(4):563–573. DOI: 10.1177/00220345760550040301
  15. Mahoney E, Kilpatrick N, Johnston T. Handbook of Pediatric Dentistry. Mosby: Maryland Heights, 2008. pp. 71–93.
  16. Rodrigues JA, Casagrande L, Araújo FB, et al. Pediatric Restorative Dentistry. Porto Alegre: Springer; 2019. pp. 161–167.
  17. Frencken JE. The Art and Science of Minimal lntervention Dentistry and Atraumatic Restorative Treatment, 1st edition. Comberton: Orleton; 2018.
  18. BaniHani A, Gardener C, Raggio DP, et al. Could COVID-19 change the way we manage caries in primary teeth? Current implications on Paediatric Dentistry. Int J Paediatr Dent 2020;30:523–525. DOI: 10.1111/ipd.12690
  19. Demirel A, Bağış N. The effects of manual and powered brushing with a tooth brush on surface roughness alteration of different resin and glass ionomer-based restorative materials: an in vitro study. Meandros Med Dent J 2021;22(2):164. DOI: 10.4274/meandros.galenos.2021.38233
  20. Emami Arjomand M, Eghlim M, Jalalian S, et al. Effects of aging on compressive strength of two resin-reinforced glass ionomers: an in-vitro study. J Res Dent Maxillofac Sci 2019;4(3):15–20. DOI: 10.29252/jrdms.4.3.15
  21. McKenzie MA, Linden RW, Nicholson JW. The physical properties of conventional and resin-modified glass-ionomer dental cements stored in saliva, proprietary acidic beverages, saline and water. Biomaterials 2003;24(22):4063–4069. DOI: 10.1016/s0142-9612(03)00282-5
  22. Shabanian M, Richards Lc. In vitro wear rates of materials under different loads and varying pH. J Prosthet Dent 2002;87(6):650–656. DOI: 10.1067/mpr.2002.125609
  23. Hoshika S, De Munck J, Sano H, et al. Effect of conditioning and aging on the bond strength and interfacial morphology of glass-ionomer cement bonded to dentin. J Adhes Dent 2015;17(2):141–146. DOI: 10.3290/j.jad.a33994
  24. Abdalla AI, Feilzer AJ. Four-year water degradation of a total-etch and two self-etching adhesives bonded to dentin. J Dent 2008;36(8): 611–617. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2008.04.011
  25. Heasman PA, Stacey F, Heasman L, et al. A comparative study of the Philips Hp 735, Braun/oral B D7 and the oral B 35 advantage toothbrushes. J Clin Periodontol 1999;26(2):85–90. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-051x.1999.260204.x
  26. Davies R, Scully C, Preston AJ. Dentifrices–an update. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2010;15(6):e976–e982. DOI: 10.4317/medoral.15.e976
  27. Monteiro B, Spohr Am. Surface roughness of composite resins after simulated toothbrushing with different dentifrices. J Int Oral Health 2015;7(7):1–5. PMID: 26229362.
  28. Baig M, Cook R, Pratten J, et al. The effect of shape and size distribution of abrasive particles on the volume loss of enamel using micro-abrasion. Wear 2020;448:203212. DOI: 10.1016/j.wear.2020.203212
  29. Enax J, Meyer F, Schulze Zur Wiesche E, et al. Toothpaste abrasion and abrasive particle content: correlating high-resolution profilometric analysis with relative dentin abrasivity (RDA). Dent J (Basel) 2023;11(3):79. DOI: 10.3390/dj11030079
  30. Hooper S, West NX, Pickles MJ, et al. Investigation of erosion and abrasion on enamel and dentine: a model in situ using toothpastes of different abrasivity. J Clin Periodontol 2003;30(9):802–808. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-051x.2003.00367.x
  31. Macdonald E, North A, Maggio B, et al. Clinical study investigating abrasive effects of three toothpastes and water in an in situ model. J Dent 2010;38(6):509–516. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2010.03.007
  32. Kanik O, Turkun LS, Dasch W. In vitro abrasion of resin-coated highly viscous glass ionomer cements: a confocal laser scanning microscopy study. Clin Oral Investig 2017;21(3):821–829. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-016-1820-5
  33. Gando I, Ariyoshi M, Ikeda M, et al. Resistance of dentin coating materials against abrasion by toothbrush. Dent Mater J 2013;32(1): 68–74. DOI: 10.4012/dmj.2012-186
  34. Yip KH, Smales RJ, Kaidonis JA. Differential wear of teeth and restorative materials: clinical implications. Int J Prosthodont 2004;17(3):350–356. PMID: 15237885.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.