An acidic diet has been associated with erosive tooth wear. However, some people who consume dietary acids develop erosive tooth wear and some do not. This review paper provides an overview of the risk factors of dietary acid consumption which increase the likelihood of developing severe erosive tooth wear. Increased frequency of dietary acid consumption, particularly between meals appears to be the predominant risk factor. However, habitually drinking acidic drinks by sipping them slowly or swishing, rinsing or holding acidic drinks in the mouth before swallowing will also increase risk of progression. Consuming fruit over long time periods at a single sitting and dietary acids being served at increased temperatures have also been implicated. Additions of fruit or fruit flavourings to drinks and regular consumption of vinegars, pickles, acidic medications or acidic sugar-free sweets are potential hidden risk factors that should be discussed with patients at risk of erosive tooth wear progression. Behaviour change is difficult to achieve but specific, targeted behavioural interventions and offering alternatives may increase success.

A NovaMin desensitising dentifrice resulted in tubule occlusion even at high brushing forces. There was minimal increase in surface roughness at the lower (100g) brushing force.

ObjectivesTo determine if Sa roughness data from measuring one central location of unpolished and polished enamel were representative of the overall surfaces before and after erosion.MethodsTwenty human enamel sections (4x4 mm) were embedded in bis-acryl composite and randomised to either a native or polishing enamel preparation protocol. Enamel samples were subjected to an acid challenge (15 minutes 100 mL orange juice, pH 3.2, titratable acidity 41.3mmol OH/L, 62.5 rpm agitation, repeated for three cycles). Median (IQR) surface roughness [Sa] was measured at baseline and after erosion from both a centralised cluster and four peripheral clusters. Within each cluster, five smaller areas (0.04 mm2) provided the Sa roughness data.ResultsFor both unpolished and polished enamel samples there were no significant differences between measuring one central cluster or four peripheral clusters, before and after erosion. For unpolished enamel the single central cluster had a median (IQR) Sa roughness of 1.45 (2.58) μm and the four peripheral clusters had a median (IQR) of 1.32 (4.86) μm before erosion; after erosion there were statistically significant reductions to 0.38 (0.35) μm and 0.34 (0.49) μm respectively (p<0.0001). Polished enamel had a median (IQR) Sa roughness 0.04 (0.17) μm for the single central cluster and 0.05 (0.15) μm for the four peripheral clusters which statistically significantly increased after erosion to 0.27 (0.08) μm for both (p<0.0001).ConclusionMeasuring one central cluster of unpolished and polished enamel was representative of the overall enamel surface roughness, before and after erosion.