Effect of toothbrushing with different manual toothbrushes on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of brushing with a Colgate 360° or Oral B Indicator 35 toothbrush on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded to extracted human teeth. The bristle wear and bristle tip morphology were also examined after simulated tooth-brushing. Orthodontic brackets (Roth-P/1st and 2nd premolar S/DSlot 0.18”) were bonded (Transbond XT) to the smoothest surface of each of 45 extracted human molar and premolar teeth. Test specimens were randomly divided into three groups: Group 1, control group with no brushing; Group 2, brushing with the Oral B Indicator 35; Group 3, brushing with the Colgate 360°. Samples were adapted to a machine that simulated tooth-brushing. The bond strength of each bracket to each tooth was assessed with a mechanical testing machine. The bristle wear and bristle tip morphology indices were also assessed. Statistically significant differences were defined for p ≤ 0.05. The average bond strengths (range: 90.18–90.89 kgf/cm2) did not differ among the three groups. The Colgate 360° showed less bristle wear and a better bristle tip morphology than the Oral B Indicator 35 toothbrush. However, use of either toothbrush did not decrease the bond strength of the orthodontic brackets. Therefore, patients undergoing orthodontic therapy can safely use either toothbrush. Descriptors: Toothbrushing; Orthodontic brackets; Primary prevention. Introduction The role of plaque accumulation in the pathogenesis of caries and periodontal disease is well-established. Disease prevention and treatment are based mainly upon biofilm removal. The most economic, practical, and accessible method for biofilm removal is personal tooth-brushing and auxiliary means.1 However, patients undergoing orthodontic therapy face great difficulties in applying oral hygiene methods. The orthodontic apparatus includes bands, brackets, and arches that act as barriers, not allowing toothbrush bristles and auxiliary cleansing to reach the underlying tooth surface. This situation induces biofilm formation, favoring gingivitis and caries formation.2,3 Various changes have been promoted in the orthodontics field in the last 50 years. One major change was the replacement of the mouth overall bandage technique by direct bracket-bonding to the dental enamel. Oliveira GJPL, Pavone C, Costa MR, Marcantonio RAC Braz Oral Res. 2010 Jul-Sep;24(3):316-22 317 This change simplified the installation of fixed appliances and allowed for a shorter period of orthodontic treatment.4 However, it is introduced the risk of bracket detachment, which can lead to treatment delays and increased costs.5 The bond strength of the bracket is also potentially affected by the friction generated during tooth-brushing.6,7 The frictional force of toothbrushes on orthodontic brackets may alter the bristle morphology through wear. Worn toothbrushes reduce biofilm removal during brushing.8,9 Round-tipped bristles are recommended to prevent damage to gingival tissues,10 with other shapes being associated with abrasions at the cement-enamel junction11 and gingival recessions.12 These factors are important in determining when to replace an old toothbrush with a new one. The aim of this study was to assess whether brushing with a Colgate 360° or Oral B Indicator 35 toothbrush alters the bond strength of orthodontic brackets fixed to extracted human teeth. We also assessed the wear of the bristles and bristle tips after two years of simulated brushing. Material and Methods Sample preparation and experimental conditions Forty-five extracted human premolar and molar teeth were used in this study, which was approved by the Ethical Committee (CEP-12/06). As selection criteria, the teeth had to be intact and free from restorations, caries, or root wear. The surfaces of each tooth were polished with rubber cups and non-fluorided prophylactic paste for 20 s, simulating a recent cleaning. Afterwards, orthodontic brackets (RothP/1st and 2nd premolar S/DSlot 0.18”; Dental Morelli Ltda., Sorocaba, São Paulo, Brazil) were bonded to the flattest surface of each tooth. The material used to bond the brackets was a BIS-GMA resinous system (Transbond XT, 3M Unitek, Monrovia, California, USA) that was light-polymerized using an Ultralux appliance (Dabi Atlante, Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo, Brazil). A single researcher performed bonding following the manufacturer’s instructions. After bonding, samples were individually stored in glass jars containing 5 ml of distilled water and maintained at 37°C. They were then stabilized in an auto-polymerizing acrylic resin (VIPI Cril, Pirassununga, São Paulo, Brazil), made using a metal matrix designed for this study, to obtain 45 test specimens. The test specimens were randomly distributed into three groups: Group 1, control group with no brushing; Group 2, brushing with the Oral B Indicator 35 toothbrush (Oral B, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA); and Group 3, brushing with the Colgate 360° toothbrush (Colgate-Palmolive, New York, NY, USA). Samples were adapted to a brushing machine, projected by the discipline of removable partial denture of Foar-Unesp (Araraquara, São Paulo, Brazil) (Figure 1) that simulated a two-year brushing period with a force of 200 N, frequency of 10 RPM, and 20,000 cycles of brushing movements.13 Analysis of bracket bond strength After the brushing stage was completed, the test specimens were adapted to new auto-polymerizing acrylic resin blocks. The bond strength was evaluated with a mechanical testing machine (Material Test System, MTS 810, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA), operated by a trained, blinded researcher. The machine speed was set at 1.0 mm/min, the recording speed was maintained at 20 mm/min, and the scale was set at 50 kg.7 The force needed to disrupt the orthodontic bracket bond was verified for each sample. Analysis of brush bristles After brushing simulations, 30 toothbrushes (15 Colgate 360° and 15 Oral B Indicator 35) were assessed for bristle wear and bristle tip morphology. Ten new toothbrushes (5 Colgate 360° and 5 Oral B Indicator 35) were assessed as a pre-brushing reference. Bristle wear analysis was performed according to the methodology used by Rawls et al.14 (1989). Five measurements were recorded for each toothbrush using a digital pachymeter (Series 500-144B, Mitutoyo, Suzano, Brazil). The measured parameters were the Free-long-length (FLL; length of the toothbrush head on the upper part on the larger side), Base-long-length (BLL; length of the toothbrush head on the lower part/base on the larger side), Front free length (FFL; length of the toothbrush head on Effect of toothbrushing with different manual toothbrushes on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets Braz Oral Res. 2010 Jul-Sep;24(3):316-22 318 the upper part on the smaller side), Base free length (BFL; length of the toothbrush head measured on the lower part/base on the smallest side), and Bristle length (BRL; bristle height measurement). The wear index (WI) was calculated by: The significance level was defined as p ≤ 0.05. Results Bracket bond strength No significant difference was observed for the mean bond strength between Groups 1 (90.60 kgf/ cm2), 2 (90.89 kgf/cm2), and 3 (90.18 kgf/cm2). The bristle wear index (WI) was increased for both toothbrushes (Groups 2 and 3) after completion of the 20,000 brushing cycles. Bristle wear and assessment of bristle tips The Oral B Indicator 35 toothbrush had a more acceptable bristle tip morphology before brushing than the Colgate 360° toothbrush, but the Colgate brush showed a more acceptable bristle tip morphology than the Oral B Indicator 35 after brushing. Within Groups 2 and 3, the bristle tip morphology before brushing was more acceptable than that after Figure 2 Classification of the bristle-tip geometry in two groups. Groups A and N represent acceptable and non-acceptable rounding, respectively. A1 A2 N2 N3 N4 N5 N1 For the bristle tip analysis, four images of each toothbrush were obtained at 20× magnification using an optical microscope (Leica Reichert & Jung Products, Wetzlar, Henssen, Germany). The images included 2 top views and 2 side views to assess the central and side bristles, respectively, in randomly chosen areas. A trained, calibrated, and blinded examiner performed two readings of the toothbrush bristles (Kappa Index = 0.83), using the bristle tipgeometric index10 (Figure 2). Statistical analysis Bioestat 5.0 software (UFPA, Belém, PA, Brazil) was used for statistical analysis. To analyze the shear bond strength of the bracket to the tooth, the Kruskal-Wallis test was used with the Mann-Whitney test. To analyze bristle wear before and after brushing, the paired t-test was used. The MannWhitney test was used to compare the bristle tips between the two toothbrushes. The Wilcoxon test was used to assess the bristle tips before and after brushing within the same group of toothbrushes. WI = FLL − BLL + FFL − BFL/BRL Figure 1 Brushing Machine. Oliveira GJPL, Pavone C, Costa MR, Marcantonio RAC Braz Oral Res. 2010 Jul-Sep;24(3):316-22 319 brushing for both toothbrushes. For the Oral B Indicator 35 toothbrush, brushing worsened the central (Figures 3A, B) and side (Figures 3C, D) bristle tips. For the Colgate 360° toothbrush, brushing worsened the central bristles (Figures 4A, B) but not the side bristles (Figures 4C, D). Discussion The Colgate 360° toothbrush is designed to promote good hygiene, regardless of the brushing technique used. This toothbrush has different bristle sizes that facilitate biofilm removal in the interproximal region, rubber cups for prophylaxis, and a tongue cleanser to remove tongue coating.15 These characteristics have been suggested to explain its efficacy compared with conventional toothbrushes in reducing plaque indices and gingival inflammation16,17 These benefits would justify the prescription of this toothbrush for orthodontic patients. However, the removal of plaque and pigments requires substantial frictional fo


Introduction
The role of plaque accumulation in the pathogenesis of caries and periodontal disease is well-established.Disease prevention and treatment are based mainly upon biofilm removal.The most economic, practical, and accessible method for biofilm removal is personal tooth-brushing and auxiliary means. 1 However, patients undergoing orthodontic therapy face great difficulties in applying oral hygiene methods.The orthodontic apparatus includes bands, brackets, and arches that act as barriers, not allowing toothbrush bristles and auxiliary cleansing to reach the underlying tooth surface.This situation induces biofilm formation, favoring gingivitis and caries formation. 2,3arious changes have been promoted in the orthodontics field in the last 50 years.One major change was the replacement of the mouth overall bandage technique by direct bracket-bonding to the dental enamel.This change simplified the installation of fixed appliances and allowed for a shorter period of orthodontic treatment. 4However, it is introduced the risk of bracket detachment, which can lead to treatment delays and increased costs. 5The bond strength of the bracket is also potentially affected by the friction generated during tooth-brushing. 6,7The frictional force of toothbrushes on orthodontic brackets may alter the bristle morphology through wear.Worn toothbrushes reduce biofilm removal during brushing. 8,9Round-tipped bristles are recommended to prevent damage to gingival tissues, 10 with other shapes being associated with abrasions at the cement-enamel junction 11 and gingival recessions. 12hese factors are important in determining when to replace an old toothbrush with a new one.
The aim of this study was to assess whether brushing with a Colgate 360° or Oral B Indicator 35 toothbrush alters the bond strength of orthodontic brackets fixed to extracted human teeth.We also assessed the wear of the bristles and bristle tips after two years of simulated brushing.

Sample preparation and experimental conditions
Forty-five extracted human premolar and molar teeth were used in this study, which was approved by the Ethical Committee (CEP-12/06).As selection criteria, the teeth had to be intact and free from restorations, caries, or root wear.The surfaces of each tooth were polished with rubber cups and non-fluorided prophylactic paste for 20 s, simulating a recent cleaning.Afterwards, orthodontic brackets (Roth-P/1 st and 2 nd premolar S/D-Slot 0.18"; Dental Morelli Ltda., Sorocaba, São Paulo, Brazil) were bonded to the flattest surface of each tooth.The material used to bond the brackets was a BIS-GMA resinous system (Transbond XT  , 3M Unitek, Monrovia, California, USA) that was light-polymerized using an Ultralux appliance (Dabi Atlante, Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo, Brazil).A single researcher performed bonding following the manufacturer's instructions.
After bonding, samples were individually stored in glass jars containing 5 ml of distilled water and maintained at 37°C.They were then stabilized in an auto-polymerizing acrylic resin (VIPI Cril, Pirassununga, São Paulo, Brazil), made using a metal matrix designed for this study, to obtain 45 test specimens.The test specimens were randomly distributed into three groups: Group 1, control group with no brushing; Group 2, brushing with the Oral B Indicator 35 toothbrush (Oral B, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA); and Group 3, brushing with the Colgate 360° toothbrush (Colgate-Palmolive, New York, NY, USA).Samples were adapted to a brushing machine, projected by the discipline of removable partial denture of Foar-Unesp (Araraquara, São Paulo, Brazil) (Figure 1) that simulated a two-year brushing period with a force of 200 N, frequency of 10 RPM, and 20,000 cycles of brushing movements. 13

Analysis of bracket bond strength
After the brushing stage was completed, the test specimens were adapted to new auto-polymerizing acrylic resin blocks.The bond strength was evaluated with a mechanical testing machine (Material Test System, MTS 810, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA), operated by a trained, blinded researcher.The machine speed was set at 1.0 mm/min, the recording speed was maintained at 20 mm/min, and the scale was set at 50 kg. 7The force needed to disrupt the orthodontic bracket bond was verified for each sample.

Analysis of brush bristles
After brushing simulations, 30 toothbrushes (15 Colgate 360° and 15 Oral B Indicator 35) were assessed for bristle wear and bristle tip morphology.Ten new toothbrushes (5 Colgate 360° and 5 Oral B Indicator 35) were assessed as a pre-brushing reference.
Bristle wear analysis was performed according to the methodology used by Rawls et al. 14 (1989).Five measurements were recorded for each toothbrush using a digital pachymeter (Series 500-144B, Mitutoyo, Suzano, Brazil).The measured parameters were the Free-long-length (FLL; length of the toothbrush head on the upper part on the larger side), Base-long-length (BLL; length of the toothbrush head on the lower part/base on the larger side), Front free length (FFL; length of the toothbrush head on the upper part on the smaller side), Base free length (BFL; length of the toothbrush head measured on the lower part/base on the smallest side), and Bristle length (BRL; bristle height measurement).The wear index (WI) was calculated by: The significance level was defined as p ≤ 0.05.

Bristle wear and assessment of bristle tips
The Oral B Indicator 35 toothbrush had a more acceptable bristle tip morphology before brushing than the Colgate 360° toothbrush, but the Colgate brush showed a more acceptable bristle tip morphology than the Oral B Indicator 35 after brushing.Within Groups 2 and 3, the bristle tip morphology before brushing was more acceptable than that after For the bristle tip analysis, four images of each toothbrush were obtained at 20× magnification using an optical microscope (Leica Reichert & Jung Products, Wetzlar, Henssen, Germany).The images included 2 top views and 2 side views to assess the central and side bristles, respectively, in randomly chosen areas.A trained, calibrated, and blinded examiner performed two readings of the toothbrush bristles (Kappa Index = 0.83), using the bristle tipgeometric index 10 (Figure 2).

Statistical analysis
Bioestat 5.0 software (UFPA, Belém, PA, Brazil) was used for statistical analysis.To analyze the shear bond strength of the bracket to the tooth, the Kruskal-Wallis test was used with the Mann-Whitney test.To analyze bristle wear before and after brushing, the paired t-test was used.The Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the bristle tips between the two toothbrushes.The Wilcoxon test was used to assess the bristle tips before and after brushing within the same group of toothbrushes.brushing for both toothbrushes.For the Oral B Indicator 35 toothbrush, brushing worsened the central (Figures 3A, B) and side (Figures 3C, D) bristle tips.For the Colgate 360° toothbrush, brushing worsened the central bristles (Figures 4A, B) but not the side bristles (Figures 4C, D).

Discussion
The Colgate 360° toothbrush is designed to promote good hygiene, regardless of the brushing technique used.This toothbrush has different bristle sizes that facilitate biofilm removal in the interproximal region, rubber cups for prophylaxis, and a tongue cleanser to remove tongue coating. 15These characteristics have been suggested to explain its efficacy compared with conventional toothbrushes in reducing plaque indices and gingival inflammation 16,17 These benefits would justify the prescription of this toothbrush for orthodontic patients.However, the removal of plaque and pigments requires substantial frictional forces 18 that could interfere with bond strength, resulting in bracket detachment. 7e found that the Colgate 360° toothbrush did not affect the bonding of orthodontic brackets to the teeth compared to the Oral B Indicator 35.Hansen et al. 7 (1999) assessed the bond strength of metal orthodontic brackets by simulating two years of brushing using conventional electric (Interplak  ) and sonic toothbrushes (Sonicare  ).Although these authors found a significant difference between the bond strengths of the control (125.4 kgf/cm²) and sonic toothbrush (79.7 kgf/cm²) groups, no differ- ence was found between the electric toothbrush group (107.5 kgf/cm²) and the sonic toothbrush or control group.Therefore, it was unclear whether the difference in bracket bonding was mainly due to mechanical forces or to the action of the sonic waves transmitted by the toothbrushes.
In the present study, significant bristle wear was verified after brushing the test specimens.The orthodontic bracket is a mechanical barrier that complicates oral hygiene, increases toothbrush friction and wear.It is recommended that the toothbrush be replaced whenever any sign of bristle wear is identified, or every 2-3 months, 12 based on in vitro 19 and in vivo 8 studies showing that less plaque is removed by worn toothbrushes when compared with new brushes.1][22] These studies indicate that other factors, such as the brushing time, brushing force, and motivation of the patient, are as important as the bristle integrity during oral hygiene. 21he quality of the rounded ends of the bristles is an important factor in protecting dental and gingival tissues.Round-tipped bristles are related to lower incidences of dental abrasions and gingival recessions. 10,11,235][26] In the present study, the Oral B Indicator 35 showed more acceptable bristle tip morphology than the Colgate 360° before brushing.After brushing, the two toothbrushes showed

A B C D
a general worsening with regard to bristle tip morphology, with the Colgate 360° having a better bristle tip morphology than the Oral B Indicator 35.This difference was due to the worsened morphology of the side bristles of the Oral B Indicator 35.The side bristles of the Colgate 360° are of different sizes, and the shorter bristles would have less contact with the test specimen.
An optical microscope was used to assess the bristle tips.Other studies have assessed bristle tips using stereoscopy 24,25 or scanning electron microscopy (SEM). 26,27Although both instruments have shown to be adequate, the bristles can become deformed during the metallization process required for SEM evaluation. 25This event does not occur when stereoscopy or optical microscopy is used.
The results of this research should be interpreted with caution due to some limitations.Toothbrushes are not commonly used for 24 months, as was the case in our study.This fact exacerbated the amount of trimming on both brushes.Standardization of the brushing force at 200 N is another limitation.The brushing force applied by orthodontic patients is very variable (range: 94-400 N 28 , mean: 250-300 N 29 ).Thus, our results represent an average estimate, and are not representative of patients who apply extremely low or high brushing forces.

Conclusion
Based on the methodology applied in this study, it was concluded that: The Colgate 360° and Oral B Indicator 35 toothbrushes did not decrease the bracket bond strength.
There was evident bristle wear of the Oral B Indicator 35 and Colgate 360° toothbrushes after brushing.However, more studies with patients undergoing orthodontic treatment are necessary to assess whether this wear influences the mechanical plaque control.The Colgate 360° toothbrush showed a better bristle tip morphology after brushing than the Oral B Indicator 35.This was because the side bristles of the Colgate 360° have different sizes, and the shorter bristles have less contact with the test specimen.

Figure 2 -
Figure 2 -Classification of the bristle-tip geometry in two groups.Groups A and N represent acceptable and non-acceptable rounding, respectively.

Figure 3 -
Figure 3 -Upper and side views of the Oral B Indicator 35 toothbrush before and after brushing cycles.(A) Upper view before brushing and demonstrating score A1. (B) Upper view after brushing and demonstrating score N5. (C) Side view before brushing and demonstrating score A1. (D) Side view after brushing and demonstrating score N2. (20 X)

Figure 4 -
Figure 4 -Upper and side views of the Colgate 360° toothbrush before and after brushing cycles.(A) Upper view before brushing and demonstrating score A1. (B) Upper view after brushing and demonstrating score N5. (C) Side view before brushing and demonstrating score A1. (D) Side view after brushing and demonstrating score A1. (20 X).