Author:
Mazur Marta,Ruggeri Marco,Ottolenghi Livia,Scrascia Andrea,Gobbi Laura,Vinci Giuliana
Abstract
Abstract
Background
A manual toothbrush is an indispensable tool for promoting and maintaining oral health worldwide but given the non-biodegradable and non-recyclable thermoplastic materials from which it is made, it cannot be considered free of threats to the environment. Therefore, also in light of the World Dental Federation's goals to implement and initiate policies for sustainable dentistry, this study evaluates the sustainability of two materials most used for manual toothbrush bristles, namely nylon, and silicone.
Objectives
The objective is to investigate the optimal solution to reduce the environmental impact of toothbrushes, and how the environmental impact would change if only the brush head was changed instead of the entire toothbrush.
Methods
Life Cycle Assessment and Carbon Footprint were used. Four manual toothbrushes with nylon bristles, and a handle in polypropylene with/without silicone parts (N1, N2, N3, N4) and two manual toothbrushes, with silicone bristles, but one with polypropylene handle only (Si1), the other with polypropylene handle and silicone parts (Si2) were evaluated.
Results
A toothbrush with silicone bristles is more sustainable than one with nylon bristles in all 18 impact categories, with average values of − 14%. In addition, eliminating only the brush head instead of the entire toothbrush could result in savings of 4.69 × 10‒3 kg CO2 eq per toothbrush. Therefore, based on the results of this study and to meet Dentistry's need to reduce its environmental impact, the ideal toothbrush should be lightweight, with less superfluous material, and with less impactful materials such as silicone instead of nylon.
Conclusions
The concluding indications for improving the sustainability of toothbrushes are therefore: (i) eliminate the amount of superfluous material; (ii) develop lighter models; and (iii) develop models in which only the brush head is replaced rather than the entire toothbrush.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference34 articles.
1. Directive (EU) 2019/904 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2019 on the reduction of the impact of certain plastic products on the environment (Text with EEA relevance); https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32019L0904. Accessed on 28 Feb 2023.
2. Sharma S, Sharma V, Chatterjee S. Microplastics in the Mediterranean Sea: sources, pollution intensity, sea health, and regulatory policies. Front Mar Sci. 2021;8: 634934.
3. Glick M, Williams DM, Ben Yahya I, et al. Vision 2030: Delivering Optimal Oral Health for All. Geneva: FDI World Dental Federation; 2021. https://www.fdiworlddental.org/sites/default/files/2021-02/Vision-2030-Delivering%20Optimal-Oral-Health-for-All_0.pdf. Accessed 28 Feb 2023.
4. Volgenant CMC, Bras S, Persoon IF. Facilitators and barriers to implementing sustainability in oral health care. Int Dent J. 2021;72(6):847–52.
5. Cetin S, Mahler L, Ramseier CA. Sustainable dentistry—part II: sustainable workplace and waste management. [Die nachhaltige Zahnmedizin. Teil 2: Nachhaltigkeit am Arbeitsplatz und in der Abfallreduktion]. Swiss Dent J. 2022;132(11):781–7.