Frictional coefficient during flossing of teeth
This in-vitro study aimed to develop a technique to measure the frictional forces and determine the frictional coefficient (μ) associated with the rubbing of dental floss against teeth. Incorrect flossing technique and the etiology of grooves at the cementoenamel junction (CEJ) of proximal area of t...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Dental materials 2018-12, Vol.34 (12), p.1727-1734 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 1734 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 12 |
| container_start_page | 1727 |
| container_title | Dental materials |
| container_volume | 34 |
| creator | Alali, A.Y. Al-Khabbaz, A. Michael, S. Swain, M.V. |
| description | This in-vitro study aimed to develop a technique to measure the frictional forces and determine the frictional coefficient (μ) associated with the rubbing of dental floss against teeth. Incorrect flossing technique and the etiology of grooves at the cementoenamel junction (CEJ) of proximal area of teeth has long been a controversial topic. We hypothesized that the μ between teeth surfaces and dental floss is affected by contact angulation.
Tests were conducted using two different types of dental floss (waxed and unwaxed nylon) on different surfaces (enamel, dentine, smooth and rough glass rods) under different moisture conditions (dry and wet). The μ generated by performing C-shape flossing was measured, using the Capstan equation, at constant load (100g) over different flossing contact sliding angulations. In addition, the surface characteristics of intact and used nylon flosses were compared using a scanning electron microscope (SEM).
The mean μ was highest with a smooth glass rod (0.42±0.11), followed by rough glass rods (0.30±0.07), dry enamel (0.27±0.08), wet enamel (0.23±0.06), then dentine (0.18±0.04). Moreover, higher μ was associated with waxed floss when used against dry enamel, smooth and rough glass rods (P |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.dental.2018.09.002 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2111746766</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0109564118305104</els_id><sourcerecordid>2111746766</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c456t-62da96359614ec09b1cd69efa24a057a04822e3ac534c488f01a3473800459263</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kLFOwzAQhi0EoqXwBghFYmFJenYcJ16QUEUBqRILzJbrXMBRmhQ7QeLtcZTCwMB0N3z3391HyCWFhAIVyzopse11kzCgRQIyAWBHZE6LXMYAMj8mc6Ag40xwOiNn3tcAwJmkp2SWAuO84DAny7Wzprddq5vIdFhV1tgQG5WDs-1bVDWd92PTVVGP2L-fk5NKNx4vDnVBXtf3L6vHePP88LS628SGZ6KPBSu1FGkmBeVoQG6pKYXESjOuIcs18IIxTLXJUm54UVRAdcrztAgnZpKJdEFupty96z4G9L3aWW-waXSL3eAVo5TmXORiRK__oHU3uPDQSAnKCshBBopPlHHhJYeV2ju70-5LUVCjUFWrSagahSqQKggNY1eH8GG7w_J36MdgAG4nAIONT4tO-dGgwdI6NL0qO_v_hm_EYIWE</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2161280709</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Frictional coefficient during flossing of teeth</title><source>ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present)</source><creator>Alali, A.Y. ; Al-Khabbaz, A. ; Michael, S. ; Swain, M.V.</creator><creatorcontrib>Alali, A.Y. ; Al-Khabbaz, A. ; Michael, S. ; Swain, M.V.</creatorcontrib><description>This in-vitro study aimed to develop a technique to measure the frictional forces and determine the frictional coefficient (μ) associated with the rubbing of dental floss against teeth. Incorrect flossing technique and the etiology of grooves at the cementoenamel junction (CEJ) of proximal area of teeth has long been a controversial topic. We hypothesized that the μ between teeth surfaces and dental floss is affected by contact angulation.
Tests were conducted using two different types of dental floss (waxed and unwaxed nylon) on different surfaces (enamel, dentine, smooth and rough glass rods) under different moisture conditions (dry and wet). The μ generated by performing C-shape flossing was measured, using the Capstan equation, at constant load (100g) over different flossing contact sliding angulations. In addition, the surface characteristics of intact and used nylon flosses were compared using a scanning electron microscope (SEM).
The mean μ was highest with a smooth glass rod (0.42±0.11), followed by rough glass rods (0.30±0.07), dry enamel (0.27±0.08), wet enamel (0.23±0.06), then dentine (0.18±0.04). Moreover, higher μ was associated with waxed floss when used against dry enamel, smooth and rough glass rods (P<0.001). At different moisture conditions, waxed floss demonstrated greater μ with dry surfaces (P<0.03). No association was found between μ and dental floss contact angulation. Both floss types showed deterioration after usage; although waxed type exhibited markedly greater deterioration when used on dry surfaces. In conclusion, the magnitude of the μ was found to be influenced by surface roughness, moisture condition, and independent of the contact angulation area during sliding of dental floss.
It is important to consider the potential side effects of frictional forces on both tooth surface and dental floss during clinical application.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0109-5641</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1879-0097</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2018.09.002</identifier><identifier>PMID: 30244840</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Cementoenamel junction ; Coefficient of friction ; Dental care ; Dental enamel ; Dental floss ; Dental materials ; Dentine ; Dentistry ; Enamel ; Etiology ; Friction ; Glass ; Grooves ; Moisture ; Oral hygiene ; Rods ; Rubbing ; Scanning electron microscopy ; Side effects ; Sliding ; Surface properties ; Surface roughness ; Teeth ; Ultrasonic testing</subject><ispartof>Dental materials, 2018-12, Vol.34 (12), p.1727-1734</ispartof><rights>2018</rights><rights>Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>Copyright Elsevier BV Dec 2018</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c456t-62da96359614ec09b1cd69efa24a057a04822e3ac534c488f01a3473800459263</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c456t-62da96359614ec09b1cd69efa24a057a04822e3ac534c488f01a3473800459263</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-3251-209X ; 0000-0002-8801-8656</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2018.09.002$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3548,27923,27924,45994</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30244840$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Alali, A.Y.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Al-Khabbaz, A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Michael, S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Swain, M.V.</creatorcontrib><title>Frictional coefficient during flossing of teeth</title><title>Dental materials</title><addtitle>Dent Mater</addtitle><description>This in-vitro study aimed to develop a technique to measure the frictional forces and determine the frictional coefficient (μ) associated with the rubbing of dental floss against teeth. Incorrect flossing technique and the etiology of grooves at the cementoenamel junction (CEJ) of proximal area of teeth has long been a controversial topic. We hypothesized that the μ between teeth surfaces and dental floss is affected by contact angulation.
Tests were conducted using two different types of dental floss (waxed and unwaxed nylon) on different surfaces (enamel, dentine, smooth and rough glass rods) under different moisture conditions (dry and wet). The μ generated by performing C-shape flossing was measured, using the Capstan equation, at constant load (100g) over different flossing contact sliding angulations. In addition, the surface characteristics of intact and used nylon flosses were compared using a scanning electron microscope (SEM).
The mean μ was highest with a smooth glass rod (0.42±0.11), followed by rough glass rods (0.30±0.07), dry enamel (0.27±0.08), wet enamel (0.23±0.06), then dentine (0.18±0.04). Moreover, higher μ was associated with waxed floss when used against dry enamel, smooth and rough glass rods (P<0.001). At different moisture conditions, waxed floss demonstrated greater μ with dry surfaces (P<0.03). No association was found between μ and dental floss contact angulation. Both floss types showed deterioration after usage; although waxed type exhibited markedly greater deterioration when used on dry surfaces. In conclusion, the magnitude of the μ was found to be influenced by surface roughness, moisture condition, and independent of the contact angulation area during sliding of dental floss.
It is important to consider the potential side effects of frictional forces on both tooth surface and dental floss during clinical application.</description><subject>Cementoenamel junction</subject><subject>Coefficient of friction</subject><subject>Dental care</subject><subject>Dental enamel</subject><subject>Dental floss</subject><subject>Dental materials</subject><subject>Dentine</subject><subject>Dentistry</subject><subject>Enamel</subject><subject>Etiology</subject><subject>Friction</subject><subject>Glass</subject><subject>Grooves</subject><subject>Moisture</subject><subject>Oral hygiene</subject><subject>Rods</subject><subject>Rubbing</subject><subject>Scanning electron microscopy</subject><subject>Side effects</subject><subject>Sliding</subject><subject>Surface properties</subject><subject>Surface roughness</subject><subject>Teeth</subject><subject>Ultrasonic testing</subject><issn>0109-5641</issn><issn>1879-0097</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kLFOwzAQhi0EoqXwBghFYmFJenYcJ16QUEUBqRILzJbrXMBRmhQ7QeLtcZTCwMB0N3z3391HyCWFhAIVyzopse11kzCgRQIyAWBHZE6LXMYAMj8mc6Ag40xwOiNn3tcAwJmkp2SWAuO84DAny7Wzprddq5vIdFhV1tgQG5WDs-1bVDWd92PTVVGP2L-fk5NKNx4vDnVBXtf3L6vHePP88LS628SGZ6KPBSu1FGkmBeVoQG6pKYXESjOuIcs18IIxTLXJUm54UVRAdcrztAgnZpKJdEFupty96z4G9L3aWW-waXSL3eAVo5TmXORiRK__oHU3uPDQSAnKCshBBopPlHHhJYeV2ju70-5LUVCjUFWrSagahSqQKggNY1eH8GG7w_J36MdgAG4nAIONT4tO-dGgwdI6NL0qO_v_hm_EYIWE</recordid><startdate>201812</startdate><enddate>201812</enddate><creator>Alali, A.Y.</creator><creator>Al-Khabbaz, A.</creator><creator>Michael, S.</creator><creator>Swain, M.V.</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><general>Elsevier BV</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QF</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>7QQ</scope><scope>7SC</scope><scope>7SE</scope><scope>7SP</scope><scope>7SR</scope><scope>7TA</scope><scope>7TB</scope><scope>7U5</scope><scope>8BQ</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>F28</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>H8D</scope><scope>H8G</scope><scope>JG9</scope><scope>JQ2</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KR7</scope><scope>L7M</scope><scope>L~C</scope><scope>L~D</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3251-209X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8801-8656</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>201812</creationdate><title>Frictional coefficient during flossing of teeth</title><author>Alali, A.Y. ; Al-Khabbaz, A. ; Michael, S. ; Swain, M.V.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c456t-62da96359614ec09b1cd69efa24a057a04822e3ac534c488f01a3473800459263</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Cementoenamel junction</topic><topic>Coefficient of friction</topic><topic>Dental care</topic><topic>Dental enamel</topic><topic>Dental floss</topic><topic>Dental materials</topic><topic>Dentine</topic><topic>Dentistry</topic><topic>Enamel</topic><topic>Etiology</topic><topic>Friction</topic><topic>Glass</topic><topic>Grooves</topic><topic>Moisture</topic><topic>Oral hygiene</topic><topic>Rods</topic><topic>Rubbing</topic><topic>Scanning electron microscopy</topic><topic>Side effects</topic><topic>Sliding</topic><topic>Surface properties</topic><topic>Surface roughness</topic><topic>Teeth</topic><topic>Ultrasonic testing</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Alali, A.Y.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Al-Khabbaz, A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Michael, S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Swain, M.V.</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Aluminium Industry Abstracts</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Calcium & Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>Ceramic Abstracts</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts</collection><collection>Corrosion Abstracts</collection><collection>Electronics & Communications Abstracts</collection><collection>Engineered Materials Abstracts</collection><collection>Materials Business File</collection><collection>Mechanical & Transportation Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Solid State and Superconductivity Abstracts</collection><collection>METADEX</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ANTE: Abstracts in New Technology & Engineering</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Aerospace Database</collection><collection>Copper Technical Reference Library</collection><collection>Materials Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Computer Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies Database with Aerospace</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts Academic</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts Professional</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Dental materials</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Alali, A.Y.</au><au>Al-Khabbaz, A.</au><au>Michael, S.</au><au>Swain, M.V.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Frictional coefficient during flossing of teeth</atitle><jtitle>Dental materials</jtitle><addtitle>Dent Mater</addtitle><date>2018-12</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>34</volume><issue>12</issue><spage>1727</spage><epage>1734</epage><pages>1727-1734</pages><issn>0109-5641</issn><eissn>1879-0097</eissn><abstract>This in-vitro study aimed to develop a technique to measure the frictional forces and determine the frictional coefficient (μ) associated with the rubbing of dental floss against teeth. Incorrect flossing technique and the etiology of grooves at the cementoenamel junction (CEJ) of proximal area of teeth has long been a controversial topic. We hypothesized that the μ between teeth surfaces and dental floss is affected by contact angulation.
Tests were conducted using two different types of dental floss (waxed and unwaxed nylon) on different surfaces (enamel, dentine, smooth and rough glass rods) under different moisture conditions (dry and wet). The μ generated by performing C-shape flossing was measured, using the Capstan equation, at constant load (100g) over different flossing contact sliding angulations. In addition, the surface characteristics of intact and used nylon flosses were compared using a scanning electron microscope (SEM).
The mean μ was highest with a smooth glass rod (0.42±0.11), followed by rough glass rods (0.30±0.07), dry enamel (0.27±0.08), wet enamel (0.23±0.06), then dentine (0.18±0.04). Moreover, higher μ was associated with waxed floss when used against dry enamel, smooth and rough glass rods (P<0.001). At different moisture conditions, waxed floss demonstrated greater μ with dry surfaces (P<0.03). No association was found between μ and dental floss contact angulation. Both floss types showed deterioration after usage; although waxed type exhibited markedly greater deterioration when used on dry surfaces. In conclusion, the magnitude of the μ was found to be influenced by surface roughness, moisture condition, and independent of the contact angulation area during sliding of dental floss.
It is important to consider the potential side effects of frictional forces on both tooth surface and dental floss during clinical application.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>30244840</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.dental.2018.09.002</doi><tpages>8</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3251-209X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8801-8656</orcidid></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0109-5641 |
| ispartof | Dental materials, 2018-12, Vol.34 (12), p.1727-1734 |
| issn | 0109-5641 1879-0097 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2111746766 |
| source | ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present) |
| subjects | Cementoenamel junction Coefficient of friction Dental care Dental enamel Dental floss Dental materials Dentine Dentistry Enamel Etiology Friction Glass Grooves Moisture Oral hygiene Rods Rubbing Scanning electron microscopy Side effects Sliding Surface properties Surface roughness Teeth Ultrasonic testing |
| title | Frictional coefficient during flossing of teeth |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-12T08%3A37%3A30IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Frictional%20coefficient%20during%20flossing%20of%20teeth&rft.jtitle=Dental%20materials&rft.au=Alali,%20A.Y.&rft.date=2018-12&rft.volume=34&rft.issue=12&rft.spage=1727&rft.epage=1734&rft.pages=1727-1734&rft.issn=0109-5641&rft.eissn=1879-0097&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.dental.2018.09.002&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2111746766%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2161280709&rft_id=info:pmid/30244840&rft_els_id=S0109564118305104&rfr_iscdi=true |