Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the current study was to evaluate the impact of three various mouthwashes on the effectiveness of fluoride dentifrices in preventing enamel erosion.
METHODS: A total of 120 sound intact human premolar teeth which were extracted for orthodontic treatment were selected for the study. A 3 × 3 mm window section was positioned in the middle of the coronal surface of the tooth in order to define the study area. Each sample was placed in a solution of 1% citric acid (pH 3.5) for 10 minutes in order to produce an eroded surface. All samples were divided into two main groups (60 samples each) as follows: Group A for sodium fluoride dentifrices and group B for stannous fluoride dentifrices, again it is subdivided into: CHX: Chlohex ADS®, EO: Listerine®, CPC: Colgate® Plax (20 samples in each subgroup). After that, samples underwent the pH cycling model for 5 days. Samples were examined for surface loss using a scanning electron microscope.
RESULTS: In sodium fluoride dentifrices group, before intervention, the surface loss was 3.12 ± 1.03 in CHX group, 3.08 ± 1.20 in EO group, and 3.09 ± 0.96 in CPC group. After intervention, the less surface loss found with CHX group (2.18 ± 0.84), followed by CPC (2.34 ± 0.74) and EO group (2.46 ± 0.97). In stannous fluoride dentifrices group, before intervention, the surface loss in CHX group was 3.26 ± 1.19, in EO group, it was 3.18 ± 1.31, and in CPC group, it was 3.22 ± 1.06. After intervention, the less surface loss found with CHX: group (1.90 ± 0.54), followed by CPC (2.24 ± 0.28) and EO group (2.38 ± 0.20).
CONCLUSIONS: The present study concluded that the fluoride dentifrices\' preventive effects against tooth surface loss were unaffected by a different mouthwashes with varying compositions and major constituents. In terms of erosion, fluoridated toothpaste containing stannous fluoride was found to provide better surface loss protection than sodium fluoride.
CONCLUSIONS: Primary prevention and the eradication of contributing causes are the greatest strategies for preventing erosion. Simultaneously, antibacterial agent in the mouthwashes may help in enhancing the effect of fluoride in the enamel, owing to their high affinity for teeth structures. Therefore, in addition to cause-related treatment, further efforts to reduce tooth tissue loss are also necessary.
METHODS: A total of 120 sound intact human premolar teeth which were extracted for orthodontic treatment were selected for the study. A 3 × 3 mm window section was positioned in the middle of the coronal surface of the tooth in order to define the study area. Each sample was placed in a solution of 1% citric acid (pH 3.5) for 10 minutes in order to produce an eroded surface. All samples were divided into two main groups (60 samples each) as follows: Group A for sodium fluoride dentifrices and group B for stannous fluoride dentifrices, again it is subdivided into: CHX: Chlohex ADS®, EO: Listerine®, CPC: Colgate® Plax (20 samples in each subgroup). After that, samples underwent the pH cycling model for 5 days. Samples were examined for surface loss using a scanning electron microscope.
RESULTS: In sodium fluoride dentifrices group, before intervention, the surface loss was 3.12 ± 1.03 in CHX group, 3.08 ± 1.20 in EO group, and 3.09 ± 0.96 in CPC group. After intervention, the less surface loss found with CHX group (2.18 ± 0.84), followed by CPC (2.34 ± 0.74) and EO group (2.46 ± 0.97). In stannous fluoride dentifrices group, before intervention, the surface loss in CHX group was 3.26 ± 1.19, in EO group, it was 3.18 ± 1.31, and in CPC group, it was 3.22 ± 1.06. After intervention, the less surface loss found with CHX: group (1.90 ± 0.54), followed by CPC (2.24 ± 0.28) and EO group (2.38 ± 0.20).
CONCLUSIONS: The present study concluded that the fluoride dentifrices\' preventive effects against tooth surface loss were unaffected by a different mouthwashes with varying compositions and major constituents. In terms of erosion, fluoridated toothpaste containing stannous fluoride was found to provide better surface loss protection than sodium fluoride.
CONCLUSIONS: Primary prevention and the eradication of contributing causes are the greatest strategies for preventing erosion. Simultaneously, antibacterial agent in the mouthwashes may help in enhancing the effect of fluoride in the enamel, owing to their high affinity for teeth structures. Therefore, in addition to cause-related treatment, further efforts to reduce tooth tissue loss are also necessary.
摘要：
目的：本研究的目的是评估三种不同漱口水对氟化物洁齿剂预防牙釉质侵蚀的有效性的影响。
方法：选择总共120颗完好的人类前磨牙进行正畸治疗。将3X3mm的窗口部分定位在牙齿的冠状表面的中间以限定研究区域。将每个样品置于1%柠檬酸溶液(pH3.5)中10分钟以产生侵蚀表面。将所有样品分为以下两个主要组（每组60个样品）：A组用于氟化钠洁齿剂，B组用于氟化亚锡洁齿剂，再次细分为：CHX：ChlohexADS®，EO:Listerine®,CPC:Colgate®Plax(每个亚组20个样品)。之后,样品经历5天的pH循环模型。使用扫描电子显微镜检查样品的表面损失。
结果：在氟化钠洁齿剂组中，干预前,CHX组的表面损失为3.12±1.03，EO组3.08±1.20，CPC组3.09±0.96。干预后,CHX组表面损失较少(2.18±0.84)，其次是CPC（2.34±0.74）和EO（2.46±0.97）组。在氟化亚锡洁牙剂组中，干预前,CHX组的表面损失为3.26±1.19，EO组，为3.18±1.31，在CPC组中，它是3.22±1.06。干预后,CHX发现的表面损失较少：组（1.90±0.54），其次是CPC（2.24±0.28）和EO（2.38±0.20）组。
结论：本研究得出结论，氟化物洁齿剂对牙齿表面损失的预防作用不受不同成分和主要成分的不同漱口水的影响。在侵蚀方面,发现含有氟化亚锡的氟化牙膏比氟化钠提供更好的表面损失保护。
结论：一级预防和消除致病原因是预防侵蚀的最大策略。同时,漱口水中的抗菌剂可能有助于增强氟化物在牙釉质中的作用，由于它们对牙齿结构的高度亲和力。因此,除了与病因相关的治疗，还需要进一步努力减少牙齿组织的损失。
方法：选择总共120颗完好的人类前磨牙进行正畸治疗。将3X3mm的窗口部分定位在牙齿的冠状表面的中间以限定研究区域。将每个样品置于1%柠檬酸溶液(pH3.5)中10分钟以产生侵蚀表面。将所有样品分为以下两个主要组（每组60个样品）：A组用于氟化钠洁齿剂，B组用于氟化亚锡洁齿剂，再次细分为：CHX：ChlohexADS®，EO:Listerine®,CPC:Colgate®Plax(每个亚组20个样品)。之后,样品经历5天的pH循环模型。使用扫描电子显微镜检查样品的表面损失。
结果：在氟化钠洁齿剂组中，干预前,CHX组的表面损失为3.12±1.03，EO组3.08±1.20，CPC组3.09±0.96。干预后,CHX组表面损失较少(2.18±0.84)，其次是CPC（2.34±0.74）和EO（2.46±0.97）组。在氟化亚锡洁牙剂组中，干预前,CHX组的表面损失为3.26±1.19，EO组，为3.18±1.31，在CPC组中，它是3.22±1.06。干预后,CHX发现的表面损失较少：组（1.90±0.54），其次是CPC（2.24±0.28）和EO（2.38±0.20）组。
结论：本研究得出结论，氟化物洁齿剂对牙齿表面损失的预防作用不受不同成分和主要成分的不同漱口水的影响。在侵蚀方面,发现含有氟化亚锡的氟化牙膏比氟化钠提供更好的表面损失保护。
结论：一级预防和消除致病原因是预防侵蚀的最大策略。同时,漱口水中的抗菌剂可能有助于增强氟化物在牙釉质中的作用，由于它们对牙齿结构的高度亲和力。因此,除了与病因相关的治疗，还需要进一步努力减少牙齿组织的损失。
