Conventional and anti-erosion fluoride toothpastes: effect on enamel erosion and erosion-abrasion

New toothpastes with anti-erosion claims are marketed, but little is known about their effectiveness. This study investigates these products in comparison with various conventional NaF toothpastes and tin-containing products with respect to their erosion protection/abrasion prevention properties. In experiment 1, samples were demineralised (10 days, 6 × 2 min/day; citric acid, pH 2.4), exposed to toothpaste slurries (2 × 2 min/day) and intermittently stored in a mineral salt solution. In experiment 2, samples were additionally brushed for 15 s during the slurry immersion time. Study products were 8 conventional NaF toothpastes (1,400-1,490 ppm F), 4 formulations with anti-erosion claims (2 F toothpastes: NaF + KNO(3) and NaF + hydroxyapatite; and 2 F-free toothpastes: zinc-carbonate-hydroxyapatite, and chitosan) and 2 Sn-containing products (toothpaste: 3,436 ppm Sn, 1,450 ppm F as SnF(2)/NaF; gel: 970 ppm F, 3,030 ppm Sn as SnF(2)). A mouth rinse (500 ppm F as AmF/NaF, 800 ppm Sn as SnCl(2)) was the positive control. Tissue loss was quantified profilometrically. In experiment 1, most NaF toothpastes and 1 F-free formulation reduced tissue loss significantly (between 19 and 42%); the Sn-containing formulations were the most effective (toothpaste and gel 55 and 78% reduction, respectively). In experiment 2, only 4 NaF toothpastes revealed significant effects compared to the F-free control (reduction between 29 and 37%); the F-free special preparations and the Sn toothpaste had no significant effect. The Sn gel (reduction 75%) revealed the best result. Conventional NaF toothpastes reduced the erosive tissue loss, but had limited efficacy regarding the prevention of brushing abrasion. The special formulations were not superior, or were even less effective.