Purpose: This in vitro investigation assessed whether different dentifrices would be capable of controlling the enamel erosion progression caused by HCl. Materials and Methods: Sixty bovine enamel slabs were covered with acid-resistant varnish, except for a 2.5-mm2 circular area on the labial surface. According to a complete block design, the experimental units were immersed in HCl solution (pH 1.2; 0.1M). After storage in artificial saliva for 1 h, specimens (n = 15) were exposed to different dentifrices: Sensodyne Cool Gel (1100 ppm F), Sensodyne ProNamel (1450 ppm F), and PrevDent 5000 (5000 ppm F). The control group was immersed in deionised water. Following five cycles of erosive challenge, the slabs were prepared for porosity evaluation using solutions of copper sulfate and rubeanic acid. Results: ANOVA demonstrated no difference in the enamel porosity as a function of the dentifrice employed (P = 0.5494). Conclusion: The damage caused by a simulated intrinsic erosive challenge seems unable to be controlled by fluoridated dentifrices, even when this ion is found in elevated concentrations.

Keywords: dentifrices, prevention and control, tooth erosion