Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
, 22 (2), 191-195

Effect of Four Different Dentifrices Applied by Customized Automated Brushing Device on Enamel Surface Abrasion: An in vitro Profilometric Study


Effect of Four Different Dentifrices Applied by Customized Automated Brushing Device on Enamel Surface Abrasion: An in vitro Profilometric Study

Paromita Mazumdar et al. J Conserv Dent.


Aim: The aim of this study is to evaluate the enamel surface abrasion using four different dentifrices and a customized automated brushing machine under a profilometer.

Materials and methods: A total of 30 enamel blocks (9 mm × 9 mm × 2 mm) were prepared from freshly extracted maxillary central incisors which were randomly divided into five equal groups (Group 1: specimens brushed with Colgate Total, Group 2: specimens brushed with Colgate Lemon and Salt, Group 3: specimens brushed with Colgate Visible White, Group 4: specimens brushed with Colgate Sensitive, and Group 5: intact enamel surface). Samples were brushed using a customized automated toothbrushing machine for 60 min. A profilometric read out (Ra value) was taken for each group subjected to brushing and also for the control group.

Statistical analysis: Statistical analysis used in this study was one-way analysis of variance followed by post hoc Tukey's test.

Results: Statistically significant differences (P < 0.05) were observed in the values of enamel abrasion (Ra) among Group 1-Group 4 whereas Group 5 (control group) had no significant difference in enamel abrasion (P > 0.05).

Conclusion: The highest enamel abrasion was observed in the group with Colgate Visible White toothpaste, and the least enamel abrasion was seen in the group with Colgate Sensitive Plus.

Keywords: Abrasion; enamel; profilometry; toothpaste.

Conflict of interest statement

There are no conflicts of interest.


Figure 1
Figure 1
(a and b) Decoronation of the tooth samples and acrylic mounting of the samples. (c) Customized automated brushing machine. (d and e) Profilometric analysis
Figure 2
Figure 2
Group distribution

Similar articles

See all similar articles


    1. Athawale R, Srinath SK, Chowdary C. Comparative evaluation of enamel abrasivity of different commercially available dentifrices – An in vitro study. J Indian Assoc Public Health Dent. 2018;16:78–82.
    1. Hoover JN, Singer DL, Pahwa P, Komiyama K. Clinical evaluation of a light energy conversion toothbrush. J Clin Periodontol. 1992;19:434–6. - PubMed
    1. Cury JA, Tenuta LM. Evidence-based recommendation on toothpaste use. Braz Oral Res. 2014;28:1–7. - PubMed
    1. Grippo JO, Simring M, Schreiner S. Attrition, abrasion, corrosion and abfraction revisited: A new perspective on tooth surface lesions. J Am Dent Assoc. 2004;135:1109–18. - PubMed
    1. Bartlett DW, Shah P. A critical review of non-carious cervical (wear) lesions and the role of abfraction, erosion, and abrasion. J Dent Res. 2006;85:306–12. - PubMed