Erosive
tooth wear (ETW) refers to the chemical dissolution of mineralized tissues by
acids of non-bacterial origin. It occurs in the primary as well as the permanent dentition. In this study, our objectives were to investigate and compare the impact of
chlorhexidine gluconate (CHX),
essential oils (EO), and
cetylpyridinium chloride (
CPC) on ETW protection produced by conventional
fluoride kinds of
toothpaste. A clinically relevant in-vitro erosion/abrasion pH cycling model was employed to test the effect of the aforementioned
mouthwashes on modulating the ability of NaF and SnF2 types of
toothpaste. The mean dentin surface loss associated with NaF
toothpaste was significantly lower than for the SnF2
toothpaste. On the other hand, enamel surface loss with SnF2
toothpaste was significantly lower than for the NaF
toothpaste. Also, the surface loss of erosion was significantly higher when associated with abrasion than without brushing and for both enamel and dentin. There was no significant difference in the surface loss among all types of mouthwash. Commonly used types of mouthwash containing
antimicrobial agents or additional
fluoride do not impact
fluoride toothpaste action on erosion/abrasion. Also, considering erosion only, the tested SnF2
dentifrice provided better protection against surface loss of enamel than the other.