Wear of artificial denture teeth by use of toothbrushes. Part 1: Abrasive wear of anterior teeth

Weight loss of five commercially available denture teeth after toothbrushing with three different dentifrices

Brushing is the most common cleansing method employed on complete dentures and it may damage the integrity of acrylic resin, the main component of this type of prosthesis. This study evaluated the abrasion resistance of artificial teeth with different number of acrylic layers, and the abrasiveness of specific and non-specific dentifrices for denture cleaning. The abrasion test was conducted by a tooth brushing device, using soft toothbrushes under load (200g). Sixty artificial teeth specimens were manufactured, 12 from each brand: Vipi-Dent Plus (Dental Vipi), Trubyte Biotone (Dentsply), Trilux (Ruthinium), Ivostar (Ivoclar) and SR Vivodent PE (Ivoclar). Three brands of dentifrices were selected: Colgate (Colgate-Palmolive), Bonyplus (Bonyf AG) and Dentu-Creme (Dentco). Distilled water was used as control. The brushing time was 100 minutes, at 356 strokes/minute. The specimens were weighed on an analytical balance before and after the abrasion test. Analysis of dentifrices' abrasive particles was made by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Two-way ANOVA and Tukey tests were employed (a=0.05). The general mean of weight loss values were obtained: 6.1 mg (Ivostar); 6.0 mg (Trilux); 5.9 mg (Trubyte); 5.8 mg (Vipi); 5.3 mg (Vivodent). The abrasiveness difference among teeth brands was not statistically significant. The Colgate dentifrice produced the greatest weight reduction (10.1 mg), followed by Dentu-Creme (7.6 mg). Bonyplus was the least abrasive (2.4 mg), similar to the distilled water used as control group (3.1 mg) (p=0.05). It was concluded that all acrylic teeth presented similar abrasion resistance. Specific dentifrices for dentures tend to cause less damage to acrylic resin.

In vitro and clinical evaluation of specific dentifrices for complete denture hygiene

OBJECTIVES

To study the physical properties of two experimental dentifrices for complete denture hygiene, their effect on denture biofilm removal and antimicrobial properties by means of a clinical trial.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The experimental dentifrices comprised two compositions. One was based on the addition of 1% chloramine T (D1) and the other on the presence of 0.01% fluorosurfactant (D2). Measurements of density, pH, consistency, rheological features and abrasiveness were conducted. Sixty complete denture wearers were randomly assigned to three groups and were instructed to brush their dentures with a specific toothbrush: (1) Water (control); (2) D1; or (3) D2. Each method was used for 21 days. Denture biofilm was disclosed by a 1% neutral red solution and quantified by means of digital photos taken from the internal surface. Microbiological assessment was conducted to quantify Candida sp. and mutans streptococci. Data were evaluated by one-way anova and Tukey HSD, or Kruskal-Wallis (alpha = 0.05).

RESULTS

Both dentifrices decreased biofilm coverage when compared with the control group. D1 was the most efficacious treatment to reduce mutans streptococci, whereas D2 showed an intermediate outcome (ANOVA, p < 0.040). No treatment influenced Candida albicans or non-albicans species (Kruskal-Wallis, p = 0.163 and 0.746, respectively).

CONCLUSION

It can be concluded that brushing complete dentures with the experimental dentifrices tested could be effective for the removal of denture biofilm.

In Vitro Wear of Nano‐Composite Denture Teeth

PURPOSE

Few laboratory tests have been able to substantiate and quantify the wear resistances of polymeric denture teeth. This study evaluated the relative wear resistance of several types of denture teeth using an in vitro wear testing device.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Four different types of denture teeth [nano-filled (Veracia) and micro-filled composites (SR-Orthosit, Endura, Duradent, Surpass), cross-linked acrylic (SR-Postaris, Genios-P, Creapearl, Vitapan Physiodens, Premium 8, Integral), and a conventional acrylic (Biotone)] were used. The flattened buccal surface of each denture tooth was subjected to the evaluation of Knoop hardness (n=5) and localized wear for 100,000 cycles (n=10). Wear values were determined in micrometers using a profilometer. The data for the hardness, wear depth, and worn surface areas were individually analyzed by one-way ANOVA.

RESULTS

Knoop hardness values (KHN) ranged from 28.2 to 29.8 for micro-filled composite, 18.9 to 21.6 for cross-linked acrylic, 22.7 for nano-composite, and 18.6 for conventional acrylic teeth. All micro-filled composite teeth were significantly harder than other teeth (p <0.0001). The wear depth values were 90.5 microm for the nano-composite, 69.8 to 93.0 microm for the micro-filled composite, 80.8 to 104.0 microm for the cross-linked acrylic, and 162.5 microm for conventional acrylic teeth. The worn surface areas were 5.1 mm2 for the nano-composite, 2.6 to 3.6 mm2 for the micro-filled composite, 4.4 to 5.7 mm2 for the cross-linked acrylic, and 10.1 mm2 for conventional acrylic teeth. The wear values of the acrylic control were significantly different from all other denture teeth (p <0.001).

CONCLUSION

The nano-composite tooth was harder and more wear resistant than the acrylic teeth but not significantly different from most of the cross-linked and micro-filled composite teeth tested.