American journal of dentistry · 2026
Laboratory evaluation of the erosive potential of fluoride-free mouthwashes using a dental erosion simulation model.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Valdivia-Tapia Astrid Carolina, Hara Anderson Takeo, Cury Jaime Aparecido, Ricomini-Filho Antonio Pedro, Lippert Frank
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To investigate the enamel/dentin surface loss caused by acidic fluoride-free mouthwashes using dental erosion simulation model.
METHODS: Enamel and dentin bovine slabs (n=8) were subjected to 5 days of treatment (four 1-minute mouthwash treatments/day). Six fluoride-free mouthwashes (MW1-MW6) with varying pH (3.03-5.12) were tested. Three 0.3% citric acid solutions (pH 3.0-5.0) and deionized water served as controls. Surface loss (SL) was measured using non-contact profilometry; enamel hardness was assessed via Knoop microhardness. Data was analyzed using one-way ANOVA.
RESULTS: For both substrates, the model was able to differentiate between the controls. Differences between PC5 and NC (0.06± 0.11/-0.13± 0.28) were only directional for enamel. SL ranged considerably between MW1-MW6; however, all were less erosive than PC3 in both substrates. In enamel, MW1 (0.20± 0.12), MW3 (-0.26± 0.29), and MW6 (0.01± 0.12) were not different from NC. MW4 (-0.48± 0.29) was not different from PC4 and PC5, whereas MW5 (-1.19± 0.59) was more erosive than PC5. The SL data for dentin were mostly comparable to enamel. In dentin, MW1 (-0.34± 0.30), MW3 (-0.68± 0.45), and MW6 (-0.79± 0.17) were also not different from NC. Some fluoride-free mouthwashes may cause dental hard tissue erosion, particularly in dentin. Erosive potential appeared to be influenced more by composition than by pH alone.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The findings highlight that mouthwash formulations significantly influence enamel and dentin surface loss, with acidity and specific ingredients playing a key role. Clinicians should exercise caution when recommending fluoride-free mouthwashes, especially to patients at risk of erosive tooth wear.
METHODS: Enamel and dentin bovine slabs (n=8) were subjected to 5 days of treatment (four 1-minute mouthwash treatments/day). Six fluoride-free mouthwashes (MW1-MW6) with varying pH (3.03-5.12) were tested. Three 0.3% citric acid solutions (pH 3.0-5.0) and deionized water served as controls. Surface loss (SL) was measured using non-contact profilometry; enamel hardness was assessed via Knoop microhardness. Data was analyzed using one-way ANOVA.
RESULTS: For both substrates, the model was able to differentiate between the controls. Differences between PC5 and NC (0.06± 0.11/-0.13± 0.28) were only directional for enamel. SL ranged considerably between MW1-MW6; however, all were less erosive than PC3 in both substrates. In enamel, MW1 (0.20± 0.12), MW3 (-0.26± 0.29), and MW6 (0.01± 0.12) were not different from NC. MW4 (-0.48± 0.29) was not different from PC4 and PC5, whereas MW5 (-1.19± 0.59) was more erosive than PC5. The SL data for dentin were mostly comparable to enamel. In dentin, MW1 (-0.34± 0.30), MW3 (-0.68± 0.45), and MW6 (-0.79± 0.17) were also not different from NC. Some fluoride-free mouthwashes may cause dental hard tissue erosion, particularly in dentin. Erosive potential appeared to be influenced more by composition than by pH alone.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The findings highlight that mouthwash formulations significantly influence enamel and dentin surface loss, with acidity and specific ingredients playing a key role. Clinicians should exercise caution when recommending fluoride-free mouthwashes, especially to patients at risk of erosive tooth wear.