A moderate degree of dental anxiety was prevalent among the children, adolescents and parents who took part in this investigation, with correlations demonstrated between some trait anxiety and dental anxiety scores.

Background Little is known about fluoride toothpastes effect on primary teeth submitted to erosive tooth wear. Objectives To evaluate the preventive effect of different toothpastes on surface loss (SL) after severe erosion/abrasion model and to compare this effect between permanent (PT) and primary teeth (pt). Design Enamel samples were randomly divided according toothpastes groups (n = 17). G1: placebo; G2: NaF; G3: AmF‐NaF‐SnCl2 anti‐erosion; G4: SnF2; and G5: NaF anti‐erosion for children. Samples were incubated in artificial saliva (1 hour), submitted to erosive challenge (3 minutes; 1% citric acid; pH3.6; at 25°C) and to toothbrush abrasion (2 minutes slurry immersion; 50 strokes; 200 g) during 30 cycles. Surface loss (μm; mean ± SD) was quantified by contactless profilometry. The effects of the two covariables “tooth” and “toothpaste” were analysed by non‐parametric ANOVA, variables with significant effects were tested by Wilcoxon tests. Results pt showed significantly higher surface loss than PT in all groups (P < 0.001). The mean values of SL of each group were: G1 PT 18.18(±3.98), pt 25.65(±9.21); G2 PT 14.76(±2.82), pt 18.11(±3.92); G3 PT 12.62(±5.29), pt 15.61(±6.70); G4 PT 17.12(±2.24), pt 23.41(±7.9); G5 PT 13.24(±1.29), pt 18.28(±8.96). Conclusions In permanent teeth, G3 showed the best preventive effect. In primary teeth, G1, G3, and G5 showed similar effect.

Erosive tooth wear prevalence in children is growing and deciduous teeth are more susceptible than permanent teeth. Considering this, it is important to know the preventive effect of different toothpastes in an initial erosion-abrasion model.