BRIGHT

SMILES
ANALYTICAL
REPORT

TO: PROF. NIKKI AGEE

By: Michael Nigro, Albert Hernandez, Russell
Gehan, Edgar Chong

Fig. 1

Bright Smiles Dispenser (Front)

Figure 1

BRIGHT SMILES

Abstract
The purpose of this report is to provide the reader with an understanding of how the development and outcome of the bright smiles
project was. Our main point in the report is to explain in detail how Bright Smiles was conceived, designed and developed. The
methodology used to undertake the project was to find a set of issues that needed a solution, once we found it we proceeded to design a
product that would eliminate said problem. The results of our work was a prototype that will be useful in solving some problems related
to cross contamination. The results were a design that will be produced using additive manufacturing, but we are confident that once
testing begins the adjustment will be minor. Our recommendations for improving the product are to obtain more data regarding
marketing, material properties and design; we also recommend to create prototypes in order to conduct more testing, to organize
workflow and to obtain assistance in areas where we lacked experience.

I.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 4

II. Methods ................................................................................................................................... 5

III. Results ..................................................................................................................................... 7
IV. Discussion................................................................................................................................ 8
V. Recommendations ................................................................................................................... 9
VI. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 10
VII. References ............................................................................................................................. 10

I.

Introduction

A simple method, brushing our teeth has become the most common oral hygienic practice in
modern days. More recently, we introduced Automatic Toothpaste Dispensers (ATDs) to make
brushing our teeth more convenient. Unfortunately, most ATDs risk spreading germs through
contact between the user's toothbrush and dispenser. Because it is such a common practice, it is
important to make sure that we are not being wasteful or risking the spread of disease when
brushing our teeth.
For this reason, our team has been working on developing an Automatic Toothpaste Dispenser
called the Bright Smiles. Our goal is to provide an easy-to-use and risk-free product for modern
families, people with arthritis, and conservative consumers. We have acquired and tested all the
necessary electronic components for the Bright Smiles prototype to function properly.
Additionally, we have finished designing the Bright Smiles plastic components. Our only
concern regards the time it might take to print every plastic part.
The purpose of this report is to discuss our product's methods of development, review our overall
progress, and explain our plans to finish developing a prototype.
This report includes seven sections Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion,
Recommendations, Conclusion, and References.

II.Methods
A. Overall Approach
When creating the bright smiles toothpaste dispenser, the processes we followed were similar to
that in the business workplace. This process follows development of a need, research the subject,
determine the possible outcomes of the market, designing, prototyping, and revising.
B. Methodology
Starting with our group contract and schedule, we proceeded to creating a schedule and set of
regulation for working together. The first step in our design process was to establish a need; this
was done by brainstorming during our weekly meetings. Once we agreed on an idea, we
researched for any possible solutions, and examined the possible market for competition. As
soon as we were approved, we began to design the bright smiles dispenser, which will be
explained in the next two sections. When the main design was stable and in the refining process
we drafted our technical description of parts and components. Finally, we began to document all
needed data to create an analytical report and prepare our final product presentation.
1) Mechanics design
This is where the mechanics and aesthetics of our product met. When we were revising our
design, we found that the use of threaded lead screws rather and linear racks of gears was more
effective. In response, we felt it would best fit our method of dispensing the most amount of
toothpaste out of the tube. We then revised the design and made the final adjustments, which
included calibrating the proper tolerances of the part for the toothpaste dispenser. Towards the
end the design, we decided to add a small blade to the end of the dispenser to keep the idea of
having a hygienic toothpaste dispenser. The small blade will rotate and cut the dispensed
toothpaste to avoid any sort of contact between the toothbrush and the dispenser.

Fig. 2

Frontal View of dispenser tilted to its left side

2) Electronics design
We drafted the electronic components as follows: we made a list of the required parts needed; we
proceeded to order the needed parts as well as drafting the programming that was required. The
testing of electronics, design, and coding of the system followed., The process followed the order
of each parts availability starting with the ultrasonic range finder, to the led function and finally
ending with the stepper motor. Once we were done, the successful testing data were used to
compile one continuous program using all function in unison.

Fig. 3

Electro-Mechanical assembly

C. Limitations of Methods Used

When working on the project several difficulties present constraint on our workflow.
These include limited amount of time brought on by the course, course work from other
classes, and the manufacturing process limiting the assembly time possible. Based off our
methods, we believe that we could have done better if we did not have to divide our
attention amongst other projects and obligations that we had. If we had balanced our
workload among members in order to improve efficiency amongst the group, it would
have been possible to obtain even greater results.

III.Results
A. Key Findings
Within the course of our design, we discovered that we needed a subassembly that would help
distribute the toothpaste without touching the dispenser itself that we required to determine how
to set the adequate number of revolutions in the step motor, and we discovered that we needed
to increase infill in our casing and parts.
B. Results of our findings
1) Threaded rods. One major factor is the contradiction of linear gears vs lead screws. Overall,
we found that the use of a leadscrew (a threaded rod) consumes less space while also providing a
more structurally stable design when combined with retention rods. This change not only
improved the design structurally also improved the accuracy when combined with the drafted
program for the device
2) Step motor revolutions. Another major influence was the use of a stepper motor. When
examining the product, it was far more effective to use a stepper motor for accuracy rather than
educated guess based off time.
3) Cutting subassembly. While examining the product the design originally showed that the
points of contact still provided areas for cross contamination of bacteria. In order to prevent that
the use of an additional DC (Direct Current) motor combined with a plastic cutter to eliminate
this.
4) Power supply. Finally, we found that increasing the amount of components I.E. adding an
additional motor decreased the stability of the electronics. To prevent this, we took into account
an increase in power consumption and made some minor adjustments in our power supply.

IV.Discussion

A. Key conclusions
1) Mechanics
Many things can go wrong the first time, from the mechanics to having to wrong
measurements for the design.
a) We found that it would be easier to use a lead screw rather than linear gearing. We decided
to go with the lead screw because it would make it more efficient get the most toothpaste of
the tube, while providing increased structural integrity.
b) We also decided to add a small blade at the bottom of the dispenser. The reason for the
blade is to keep our idea of a hygienic toothpaste dispenser meaning that the toothbrush will
never make any contact the dispenser avoiding any possible cross contamination.
2) Electronics
The electronics only went through three revisions in order to produce the finished
product.
a) The first revision was the switch from a DC motor to a stepper motor. We did this in order
to produce more accurate results; when dispensing the toothpaste when combined with the use
of a lead screw.
b) The second revision was the switch form one motor to two as well as increasing the power
to improve functionality when combined with the cutter. We did this in order to cut the strand
of toothpaste once it was dispensed and to help with hygiene.
c) Finally the last revision was to increase the power supply from one 9 volts to two. This was
done to improve consistency for the electronic components

V.

Recommendations

A. Suggestions
In order to improve the outcome of the project we recommend doing more extensive research
than what was already done, optimizing our workforce usage, prototyping, organizing in a
more time efficient manner, avoiding over complication with designs and ideas, draft more
freely, and seek external assistance when it is needed.
B. Justification
1) Research. The research conducted could have been more useful if we collected more data
and were able to make better-informed decisions regarding the course our project would take.
2) Optimization. We would have liked to optimize our resources, such as, materials used;
CAD design time, meeting durations, making our agendas as lean and concise as possible and
we could have improve our work force usage.
3) Prototyping. We should have also made several tests for the printed parts to collect data
and analyze the behavior of the materials and printers we were using in order to better
familiarize ourselves with an outcome that can we predict.
4) Over complication. This played a large role in undermining our progress. We lost too
much time overthinking and redoing things that we could have cleaned up or adjusted later.
5) Drafting. When we drafted our reports, we restricted ourselves, to the point that it placed
us in a chokehold that was difficult to free ourselves from. What we needed to do is to let our
ideas fly free, then revise, and lean the material that we released as output.
6) External assistance. We needed to request assistance from experts that could have helped
us develop our product or provide us advice on doing it more efficiently or with better
quality.
C. Summary of Recommendations
As far as recommendations go, we should have done more research, optimized our resources,
prototyped, simplified our thought process, drafted freely/lean our documents after the draft
and we should have sought external assistance.

VI.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this report has reviewed the progress of project Bright Smiles. We have
successfully tested the mechanics of the electronic components to suit our needs. We have
learned (1) that threaded lead screws were better suited for our product than linear gearing,
(2) to use a cutter blade, and (3) to use a stepper motor instead of DC motor. While finalizing
our project, we hope to be efficient, resourceful, and simple with our work. We look forward
to present an ideal ATD to our class and professor by the end of the semester. Thank you for
your time and attention. If you have any questions, you may contact our team leader by
email:
manigro@miners.utep.edu

References
Not applicable.

1
0