Main Article Content
Objectives: To investigate and compare the impact of chlorhexidine gluconate (CHX), essential oils (EO) or cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) on Erosive Tooth Wear (ETW) protection afforded by conventional fluoride toothpastes.
Methodology: A clinically relevant in-vitro erosion/abrasion pH cycling model was employed to test the effect of the aforementioned rinses on modulating the ability of NaF and SnF2 toothpastes.
Results: The mean dentin surface loss associated with NaF toothpaste was significantly lower than for SnF2 toothpaste. Enamel surface loss with SnF2 toothpaste was found to be significantly lower than for the NaF toothpaste. Also, the surface loss of erosion when associated with abrasion was significantly higher than without brushing and for both enamel and dentin. There was no significant difference in the surface loss among all mouthwashes.
Conclusion: Commonly used mouthwashes containing antimicrobial agents or additional fluoride, do not impact fluoride toothpaste action on erosion/abrasion. SnF2 dentifrice provided better protection against surface loss of enamel than the others.