Tongue brush

Abstract

To provide a tongue brush capable of scraping out tongue plaque without losing stiffness by using thin bristles for scraping out the tongue plaque entering between lingual papillae.SOLUTION: A lingual brush (1) includes a base (2) having a plurality of bristle holes (2a), and a plurality of bristle bundles (3) respectively implanted in the plurality of bristle holes (2a), wherein the plurality of bristle bundles (3) are made of bristles with diameters of 0. 06mm to 0. 08mm, and an area ratio of each of the plurality of bristle holes (2a) to the corresponding bristle hole (2a) is 35% to 75%, so that thin bristles with diameters of 0. 06mm to 0. 08mm can be used to scrape off and remove tongue plaque between papillae without losing firmness.SELECTED DRAWING: Figure 1

Description

[Technical Field]

[0001] The present invention relates to a tongue brush that is placed in contact with the surface of the tongue to scrape off tongue coating. [Background technology]

[0002] For example, a tongue brush described in Patent Document 1 has been proposed as a tool for removing tongue coating that causes bad breath. This tongue brush has a brush section consisting of a bristle base and multiple bristle bundles planted on the bristle base, and a connecting section that is integrally formed with the brush section and connectable to a handle, and is characterized in that the multiple bristle bundles increase in height relative to the bristle base as they move away from the connecting section.

[0003] In addition, the bristles that make up the bristle bundles in this tongue brush are made of nylon bristles that are significantly thinner (70 micrometers in diameter) than the bristles in regular toothbrushes.The average protruding height of the bristles within the brush head from the surface of the bristle base is 8 millimeters, and each bristle bundle contains 210 bristles. [Prior art documents] [Patent documents]

[0004] [Patent Document 1] Registered Utility Model No. 3190601 Summary of the Invention [Problem to be solved by the invention]

[0005] The surface of the tongue is covered with protrusions called papillae, and in order to use a tongue brush to scrape away the tongue coating that has gotten in between these papillae, the bristles need to be thin. However, thinning the bristles causes the bristles to lose their stiffness (elasticity), which means that the force required to scrape away the tongue coating is lost. In other words, simply making the bristles thinner and increasing the number of bristles per tuft, as in the tongue brush described in Patent Document 1, will result in the bristles losing their stiffness and making it impossible to remove tongue coating.

[0006] Therefore, the object of the present invention is to provide a tongue brush that uses thin bristles to scrape off tongue coating that has gotten into between the papillae, without losing stiffness. [Means for solving the problem]

[0007] The tongue brush of the present invention includes a base having a plurality of bristle implantation holes, and a plurality of bristle bundles implanted in the plurality of bristle implantation holes, each of which comprises bristles with a diameter of 0.06 mm to 0.08 mm, more preferably 0.06 mm to 0.07 mm, and each of which accounts for 35% to 75% of the area of ​​the bristle implantation hole. Note that, in this specification, a numerical range indicated by "to" means a numerical range that includes the numbers before and after "to" as the lower and upper limits.

[0008] According to the tongue brush of the present invention, by implanting thin bristles with a diameter of 0.06 mm to 0.08 mm in bundles so that the area ratio of the implanted bristles to the implanted holes is 35% to 75%, it is possible to ensure the stiffness necessary to scrape away tongue coating that has become lodged between the papillae, and the tongue coating can be scraped away without losing the force required to scrape it away.

[0009] If the hair diameter is less than 0.06 mm, even if the hair is implanted with the above area ratio, the hair itself will lose its stiffness and will not be able to scrape tongue coating. Also, if the hair diameter is more than 0.08 mm, the hair will be too hard and will be aggressive to the tongue, causing severe pain.

[0010] The area ratio is within the range of 35% to 75%, and more preferably 40% or more, 45% or more, 50% or more, 65% or less, or 70% or less. At a density of less than 35%, the bristles with fine bristles (0.06 mm to 0.08 mm in diameter) are too weak to remove tongue coating. On the other hand, at a density of more than 75%, the bristles become too stiff and hard, increasing their attack on the lingual papillae. Furthermore, it becomes difficult to remove tongue coating that has become trapped in the bristles, resulting in unsanitary conditions. [Effects of the Invention]

[0011] The tongue brush of the present invention uses fine bristles with a diameter of 0.06 mm to 0.08 mm that can scrape away tongue coating that has gotten in between the papillae, making it possible to scrape away and remove tongue coating without losing its stiffness. [Brief explanation of the drawings]

[0012] [Figure 1] 1 is a perspective view of a tongue brush according to an embodiment of the present invention. [Figure 2] FIG. 2 is a plan view of the tongue brush of FIG. 1. [Figure 3] FIG. 2 is a front view of the tongue brush of FIG. 1. [Figure 4] FIG. 2 is a left side view of the tongue brush of FIG. 1. [Figure 5] This is a graph of the OD values ​​in Table 2. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

[0013] FIG. 1 is a perspective view of a tongue brush according to an embodiment of the present invention, FIG. 2 is a plan view, FIG. 3 is a front view, and FIG. 4 is a left side view.

[0014] As shown in Figures 1 to 4, tongue brush 1 in this embodiment of the present invention has a brush part 4 in which multiple bristle bundles 3 are attached to a base part 2, and a shaft part 5 connected to a handle (not shown). The handle can be an electric one with a drive part that generates ultrasonic vibrations, or a simple rod-shaped grip part, etc.

[0015] A plurality of bristle implantation holes 2a are formed in the base 2. Each bristle implantation hole 2a is a round hole with a diameter of 1.6 mm. A bristle bundle 3 is implanted in each bristle implantation hole 2a. The bristle bundle 3 is a bundle of bristles with a diameter of 0.06 mm to 0.08 mm. The bristles used for the bristle bundle 3 are, for example, fibers made of resins such as polyamide synthetic resin (nylon), polybutylene terephthalate (PBT), and polyester, or horse or pig bristles. The bristles are implanted so that the area ratio of each bristle implantation hole 2a is 35% to 75%.

[0016] In addition, the base portion 2 has a rounded isosceles triangle shape with the tip of the tongue brush 1 as the vertex in a plan view as shown in Fig. 2. A plurality of bristle implantation holes 2a are formed evenly throughout the base portion 2 except for the peripheral edge portion. As shown in Figs. 3 and 4, the bristle bundles 3 are implanted so as to be flat at the center portion of the base portion 2 (on the central axis of the shaft portion 5 in Fig. 2). The protruding length of the bristle bundles 3 at the center portion of the base portion 2 is 5 mm to 7 mm. In addition, the bristle bundles 3 have a smooth convex shape (fan shape) with the highest point at the center so as to fit the shape of the tongue.

[0017] In the tongue brush 1 configured as described above, by implanting thin bristles with a diameter of 0.06 mm to 0.08 mm into bristle bundles 3 so that the area ratio of the implantation holes 2a is 35% to 75%, it is possible to ensure the stiffness necessary to scrape out tongue coating that has gotten in between the papillae, and the tongue coating can be scraped out and removed without losing the force required to scrape it out. [Example]

[0018] Example 1 A sensory test was conducted on the tongue brush of the present invention. Table 1 shows a comparison between the tongue brush of the present invention and a comparative tongue brush (commercially available). For the comparative tongue brush, two actual products were measured.

[0019] [Table 1]

[0020] As shown in Table 1, the area ratio of hair to implantation hole was less than 30% in all of Comparative Examples 1-1, 1-2, 2-1, and 2-2. When comparing the number of hairs, there was a difference of about 3.4 to 4 times between Examples and Comparative Examples.

[0021] The tongue brushes of Examples 1 to 10 had bristle diameters in the range of 0.06 mm to 0.08 mm, and the bristle area ratio was approximately 50% to 70%, which provided the necessary stiffness to scrape away the tongue coating that had gotten between the papillae, and the bristles were able to get between the papillae and scrape away the tongue coating. They also felt good on the tongue.

[0022] On the other hand, the tongue brushes of Comparative Examples 1-1, 1-2, 2-1, and 2-2 had bristles with a diameter of slightly more than 0.08 mm, which made them less aggressive to the tongue, but the bristles had an area ratio of less than 30%, making the bristles too weak to remove tongue coating, and there was a tendency for the brushing frequency to increase.

[0023] <Example 2> Next, a comparative test was conducted on the tongue coating removal effect (OD value) using the prototype tongue brush and a commercially available tongue brush. OD value is an index that represents optical density. OD value is an index that numerically indicates the degree of absorption and scattering by a substance based on the transmittance of light. When the intensity of incident light is I0 and the intensity of transmitted light is I, OD=-log 10 (I / I0) It is expressed as:

[0024] The test involved 20 women in their early twenties, designated as subjects 1 to 20. The tongues of each subject were divided into left and right halves, and the same surgeon operated the prototype tongue brush and a commercially available tongue brush five times on each side, using the same pressure and speed. After use, the tongue brush was vibrated and washed in 50 mL of water for five seconds, and the OD value of the washing water was measured.

[0025] The prototype tongue brushes (development products A to D) had a hole diameter of 1.6 mm, a bristle diameter of 0.064 mm, and a protruding length of 7 mm, with different area ratios to the implantation holes. Subjects 1 to 5 used the one with an area ratio to the implantation hole of 25 to 30% (development product A), subjects 6 to 10 used one with an area ratio of 35 to 45% (development product B), subjects 11 to 15 used one with an area ratio of 50 to 70% (development product C), and subjects 16 to 20 used one with an area ratio of over 75% (development product D).

[0026] Table 1 shows the OD values ​​measured by subjects 1 to 20 using tongue brushes A to D and commercially available product B. For comparison, Table 2 shows the results calculated with the OD value of commercially available product B set at 1. Figure 5 is a graph of the OD values ​​in Table 2. Table 3 shows the average OD values ​​of each of developed products A to D and the difference in removal efficiency compared to commercially available product B.

[0027] [Table 2]

[0028] [Table 3]

[0029] [Table 4]

[0030] From the above results, it can be seen that the group using developed product A (area ratio 25-30%) removed less material than commercial product B. Also, the group using developed product B (area ratio 40-45%) was slightly superior to commercial product B. The group using developed product C (area ratio 50-70%) generally removed more material than commercial product B. The group using developed product D (area ratio over 75%) removed more material than commercial product B.

[0031] As can be seen, the removal efficiency improved as the area ratio increased, and all groups of development products B to D, except for group A, achieved removal efficiency higher than that of commercially available products. On the other hand, development product D, with an area ratio of over 75%, was highly aggressive to the tongue papillae due to its high density, causing discomfort. Furthermore, tongue coating that had become embedded in the hair bundles tended to remain even after five seconds of vibration cleaning in water. [Industrial Applicability]

[0032] The tongue brush of the present invention is useful as a tongue brush for scraping off tongue coating by contacting it with the surface of the tongue. [Explanation of symbols]

[0033] 1 tongue brush 2 Base 2a Hair transplant hole 3 hair bundles 4 Brush section 5 Shaft

Claims

1. a base portion having a plurality of tufting holes; a plurality of hair bundles respectively implanted in the plurality of hair implantation holes, the hair bundles being made of hair with a diameter of 0.06 mm to 0.08 mm, and the area ratio of each of the plurality of hair implantation holes to the hair implantation holes being 35% to 75%; Includes a tongue brush.

2. 2. The tongue brush according to claim 1, wherein the length of the bristle bundles projecting from the center of the base is 5 mm to 7 mm.

Images