The Effect of Actives in Desensitizing and Conventional Mouth Rinses Against Dentin Erosive Wear.

This study evaluated the effect of actives present in conventional and desensitizing mouth rinses on the control of dentin erosive tooth wear. Two hundred and seventy dentin specimens from human molars were prepared. The specimens were randomly allocated into 10 experimental groups (n=10): 4 corresponding to desensitizing mouth rinses, 4 to conventional mouth rinses, a negative control group (C-: distilled water), and a positive control group (C+: 500 ppm fluoride plus 800 ppm tin mouth rinse).

Impact of different brushing/abrasion protocols on erosive tooth wear for in vitro studies.

Objective: To investigate the influence of different toothbrushing (with dentifrice) protocols on the progression of erosive tooth wear for in vitro studies.

Design: Bovine enamel specimens were randomly distributed into 12 experimental groups (n = 10), according to the study factors: (1) brushing movement (horizontal or circular); (2) slurry diluent (artificial saliva or distilled water); (3) toothpaste dilution ratio (1:2, 1:3 or 1:4). A 5-day erosion-abrasion cycling model was performed, each consisting of 4 erosive challenges (0.

Assessment of the Ability of Desensitizing and Conventional Mouth Rinses to Promote Dentin Tubule Occlusion.

This study aimed to evaluate the effect of desensitizing and conventional mouth rinses on dentin tubule occlusion. Dentin hypersensitivity was simulated by EDTA application for five minutes. The specimens were randomly allocated into the following groups: desensitizing mouth rinses (Colgate Sensitive, Elmex Sensitive Professional, Listerine Advanced Defense Sensitive, Sensodyne Cool Mint); conventional mouth rinses (Colgate Plax, Elmex Caries Protection, Listerine Anticaries, Sensodyne Pronamel); a negative control (C-: distilled water); and Clinpro XT Varnish was the positive control (C+).