The effect of saliva substitutes on enamel erosion in vitro

AbstractObjectives estigate the effect of saliva substitutes on enamel erosion in vitro. s l of 204 bovine enamel samples were embedded in acrylic resin and allocated to 17 groups (n = 12). The specimens were eroded in an artificial mouth (3 days; 6 × 30 s/days, flow rate: 2 ml/min) using citric acid (pH: 2.5). Immediately after the erosive attacks, saliva substitutes (12 sprays, 3 gels) were applied. Between the erosive cycles the specimens were rinsed with artificial saliva (flowrate: 0.5 ml/min). A SnCl2/AmF/NaF-containing mouthrinse was used as positive control, water spray served as negative control. Enamel loss was measured profilometrically and the data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA followed by Scheffé’s post hoc tests (p < 0.05). s aliva substitutes increased enamel erosion, probably due to the low pH or the content of citric acid. Several saliva substitutes were able to reduce enamel erosion significantly by 60–90% (in the range of the positive control). The protective potential of these products was in the range of the positive control (reduction of enamel loss to 30% of negative control). The erosion-protective potential of these high-viscous products is probably related to their film-forming properties, leading to a mechanical protection of the surface. sion substitutes containing a very low pH exhibit a distinct erosive potential, while most high-viscous products present an erosion-protective effect. It can be recommended that patients suffering from xerostomia and at high risk for dental erosion should use high-viscous saliva substitutes, but should avoid saliva substitutes with low pH or containing citric acid. al significance be recommended that patients suffering from xerostomia and at high risk for dental erosion should use high-viscous saliva substitutes, but should avoid saliva substitutes with low pH or containing citric acid.