Effects of Erosion Protocol Design on Erosion/Abrasion Study Outcome and on Active Agent (NaF and SnF2) Efficacy.

There is no standard for testing anti-erosive/anti-abrasive agents, making the assessment and comparison of study results difficult. Factors which are varied in study designs are amongst others the erosive medium regarding concentration and pH or movement type of acid. The present study therefore investigated the impact of these factors on dimension of tissue loss and on efficacy of active agents used as anti-erosive/anti-abrasive therapeutics. In 8 experiments, consisting of 8 groups each (n = 20 each), resulting in a total of 64 groups, enamel specimens were demineralised (10 days, 6 × 2 min/day) using different acids (1, 0.5 and 0.3% citric acid at native pH 2.3, 2.5 and 2.8, respectively, and 0.3% citric acid adjusted to pH 3.6) with two different movement types (jerky or smooth). Specimens were immersed (2 × 2 min/day) in slurries of 1,450 ppm F- toothpaste (NaF), 1,450 ppm F- and 3,436 ppm Sn2+ toothpaste (NaF/SnF2), 970 ppm F- and 3,000 ppm Sn2+ gel (SnF2) or placebo, or were additionally brushed during immersion (15 s, 200 g). All groups were in between stored in a mineral salt solution. Tissue loss was determined profilometrically. Movement type, pH and concentration of acid had a substantial impact on study outcome. The combination of jerky movement and concentrated acid masked, to some extent, differences between erosive and erosive-abrasive tissue loss. The acid at low concentration (0.3%), independent of pH, was too mild to produce any tissue loss. The model with the best ability to demonstrate effects of abrasive impacts and active agents used the 1% acid concentration combined with smooth acid movements.