What question did this study set out to answer?

To evaluate the effectiveness of a 5000-ppm fluoride dentifrice in preventing erosive and abrasive tooth wear compared to lower fluoride formulations.

May 8, 2026Open Access

Prevention of erosive, abrasive and erosive/abrasive tooth wear by a high-concentration fluoride dentifrice: an in vitro study

Key Points

To evaluate the effectiveness of a 5000-ppm fluoride dentifrice in preventing erosive and abrasive tooth wear compared to lower fluoride formulations.
240 bovine enamel specimens were randomly assigned to three treatment models: erosion followed by abrasion, erosion only, and abrasion only.
Four dentifrice treatments were applied and subjected to erosive challenges with citric acid followed by brushing.
Enamel surface loss was measured by contact profilometry after 10 treatment cycles.
In the erosion only model, EPOS significantly reduced enamel loss compared to artificial saliva (p = 0.01).
In the erosion followed by abrasion model, significant differences were found between AS and EPOS, but no significant effects from 5000 ppm fluoride dentifrice were observed.
Increasing fluoride concentration to 5000 ppm did not enhance protective effects against enamel wear.

Abstract

This in-vitro study compared the protective effects of a 5000-ppm fluoride dentifrice with an anti-erosive 1450-ppm formulation containing stannous chloride and chitosan under erosive, abrasive, and erosive/abrasive conditions. A total of 240 bovine enamel specimens were randomly assigned to three models: erosion followed by abrasion (EA), erosion only (E), and abrasion only (A) (n = 80 per model; n = 20 per treatment). Four treatments were tested: artificial saliva (AS), a conventional 1450-ppm NaF and SnF2 dentifrice (CT; Colgate Total), an anti-erosive 1450-ppm AmF dentifrice containing stannous chloride and chitosan (EPOS; Elmex professional Opti-Schmelz), and a 5000-ppm NaF dentifrice (CD; Colgate Duraphat). Erosive challenge consisted of 1% citric acid (pH 2.6) for 2 min. In EA, erosion was followed by brushing (1 min); in E, specimens were exposed to AS or slurry without brushing; in A, specimens were brushed without prior erosion. Brushing was performed with a manual toothbrush at 60 strokes/min under 2.5 N. Dentifrices were applied as slurries (1:6.5, artificial saliva). Ten cycles were performed with 1 h storage in artificial saliva between cycles. Enamel surface loss (µm) was measured by contact profilometry at baseline and after 10 cycles. Data were analysed using Kruskal–Wallis and Conover post-hoc tests. Significant differences were observed in EA and E (p < 0.05), but not in A (p = 0.40). In E, only EPOS reduced enamel surface loss compared with AS (p = 0.01), while CT and CD showed no significant differences. In EA, a significant difference was found only between AS and EPOS. CD did not show superior protective effects in any model. Within the limitations of this in-vitro study, increasing fluoride concentration to 5000 ppm did not enhance protection against erosive or erosive/abrasive enamel surface loss. These findings suggest that formulation-related factors, including stannous-based interactions, may be more relevant than fluoride concentration alone for preventing erosive tooth wear.

Bookmark

View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Mayer et al. (Wed,) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69fd7e90bfa21ec5bbf06ded https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-026-08546-6

Bookmark

View Full Paper