The Impact of Mouthrinses on the Efficacy of Fluoride Dentifrices in Preventing Enamel and Dentin Erosion/ Abrasion

Abstract

Objective: Toothbrushing with fluoride toothpaste followed by rinsing with mouthwash is a routine procedure to maintain good oral hygiene. It is unknown to what extent these rinses can modulate the effect of fluoride in its ability to prevent erosion/abrasion.The aim of this in-vitro study was to investigate and compare the impact of chlorhexidine (CHX), essential oils (EO) and cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) mouthrinses on erosive tooth wear protection afforded by conventional fluoride toothpastes.

Materials and Methods: The following experimental factors were considered: five rinses: CHX, EO, CPC, a fluoride rinse, and deionized water, two fluoride toothpastes: stannous fluoride (SnF2) or sodium fluoride (NaF) and two models: (erosion/ erosion+abrasion). Slabs of bovine enamel and dentin were prepared and embedded in resin blocks and generated 10 enamel and dentin testing groups (n = 8). UPVC tapes were placed on the sides of each slab leaving 1mm area exposed in the center. The blocks were subjected to a five-day cycling model. Then, the blocks were placed in a brushing machine and exposed to fluoride toothpaste slurry (one side was brushed and the other wasn’t). The blocks were then exposed to rinse treatments. Artificial saliva was used to remineralize the specimens after erosions and treatment challenges, and as storage media. After the fifth day of cycling, surface loss (in micrometers) was determined by profilometer. Data were analyzed using ANOVA (α = 0.05).

Results: There was no interaction among the three factors (type of toothpaste, mouthrinse and abrasion or not (dentin p = 0.0520, enamel p = 0.4720). There were no significant two-way interactions as SL was only affected by toothpaste and mouthrinse. NaF caused less SL than SnF2 (4.60 vs. 5.83 μm; p < 0.0001) in dentin, whereas the opposite was found in enamel (5.20 vs. 3.56 μm; p < 0.0001). Toothbrushing abrasion caused comparatively more SL in enamel (6.53 vs. 2.23 μm; p < 0.0001) than in dentin (6.06 vs. 4.38 μm; p < 0.0001). None of the tested mouthrinses affected SL.

Conclusion: Commonly used mouthrinses containing antimicrobial agents or additional fluoride, do not impair the erosion/abrasion protection afforded by fluoride toothpastes. Tested SnF2 dentifrice offered greater protection against enamel surface loss and NaF dentifrices showed more protection for the dentin surface.

Clinical relevance: The understanding of the interaction between commonly used rinses and fluoride dentifrices will help dentists provide better recommendations to patients with erosive lesions.