Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 24, 2026

Roughness Impact of Piezoelectric Dental Scaler on Two Distinct Flowable Composite Filling Materials
Published on: January 10, 2025
Influence of Toothbrushing on the Antierosive Effect of Film-Forming Agents
Taís Scaramucci1, Samira Helena João-Souza, Frank Lippert
1Department of Restorative Dentistry, University of Sx00E3;o Paulo School of Dentistry, Sx00E3;o Paulo, Brazil.
Abstract:
This study evaluated the influence of toothbrushing on the antierosive effect of solutions containing sodium fluoride (225 ppm/F), stannous chloride (800 ppm/Sn), sodium linear polyphosphate (2%/LPP), and their combinations, and deionized water as negative control (C). Solutions were tested in a 5-day erosion-remineralization-abrasion cycling model, using enamel and dentin specimens (n = 8). Erosion was performed 6 times/day for 5 min, exposure to the test solutions 3 times/day for 2min, and toothbrushing (or not) with toothpaste slurry 2 times/day for 2 min (45 strokes). Surface loss (SL) was determined by noncontact profilometry. Data were analyzed using three-way ANOVA (α = 0.05). Brushing caused more SL than no brushing for enamel (mean ± SD, in micrometers: 52.7 ± 6.6 and 33.0 ± 4.5, respectively), but not for dentin (28.2 ± 1.9 and 26.6 ± 1.8, respectively). For enamel without brushing, F+LPP+Sn showed the lowest SL (23.8 ± 3.4), followed by F+Sn (30.6 ± 4.9) and F+LPP (31.7 ± 1.7), which did not differ from each other. No differences were found between the other groups and C (37.8 ± 2.1). When brushing, F+LPP+Sn exhibited the lowest SL (36.7 ± 2.4), not differing from F+LPP (39.1 ± 1.8). F, F+Sn and LPP+Sn were similar (46.7 ± 2.9, 42.1 ± 2.8 and 45.3 ± 4.6, respectively) and better than C (52.7 ± 4.3). Sn (55.0 ± 2.4) and LPP (51.0 ± 4.3) did not differ from C. For dentin, neither groups differed from C, regardless of brushing. In conclusion, toothbrushing did not affect the antierosive effect of F+Sn, F+LPP and F+LPP+Sn on enamel, although overall it led to more erosion than nonbrushing. F and LPP+Sn showed a protective effect only under brushing conditions, whereas Sn and LPP did not exhibit any protection. For dentin, neither toothbrushing nor the test solutions influenced the development of erosion.
More Related Videos
08:47Mimicking and Measuring Occlusal Erosive Tooth Wear with the "Rub&Roll" and Non-contact Profilometry
Published on: February 2, 2018
08:20Systematic Approach to Identify Novel Antimicrobial and Antibiofilm Molecules from Plants' Extracts and Fractions to Prevent Dental Caries
Published on: March 31, 2021
Related Concept Videos
Factors Affecting Dissolution: Particle Size and Effective Surface Area
The Oral Microbiota
Biofilms
Drugs for Peptic Ulcer Disease: Sucralfate as Mucosal Protective Agents
In this scenario, mucosal protective agents like sucralfate play an essential role. Sucralfate, a complex of sulfated sucrose and aluminum hydroxide, demonstrates its usefulness in acidic conditions,...
Factors Influencing Drug Absorption: Pharmaceutical Parameters