Effect of sucralfate against hydrochloric acid-induced dental erosion

  • Cecilia P. TurssiEmail author
  • Flávia L. B. Amaral
  • Fabiana M. G. França
  • Roberta T. Basting
  • Anderson T. Hara
Original Article



Devising effective measures for the prevention of hydrochloric acid (HCl)-induced erosion is of great significance. This is even more important in dentine, in which products have limited diffusion. Therefore, agents that can bind to proteins forming an acid-resistant gel-like coat, such as sucralfate, may stand out as a promising alternative. This study investigated the protective effect of sucralfate suspensions against HCl-induced dental erosion.

Materials and methods

In the first experiment, hydroxyapatite (HAp) crystals were pre-treated with a commercial sucralfate suspension (CoSS, pH 5.9), a stannous-containing sodium fluoride solution (NaF/SnCl2 pH 4.5), two prepared sucralfate suspensions (PrSS, pH 5.9 and 4.5), or deionized water (DI, control). HAp dissolution was measured using a pH-stat system. In a subsequent experiment, embedded/polished enamel and root dentine slabs were allocated into five groups to be treated with one of the tested substances prior to and during erosion-remineralization cycles (HCl-2 min + artificial saliva 60 min, two times per day, 5 days). Surface loss was assessed profilometrically. Data were analyzed by ANOVA and Tukey’s tests.


HAp dissolution was as follows: NaF/SnCl2 < CoSS < PrSS/pH 4.5, while PrSS/pH 5.9 = DI and both did not differ from CoSS and PrSS/pH 4.5. In enamel, surface loss did not differ between CoSS and PrSS/pH 4.5, with both having lower surface loss than PrSS/pH 5.9 and DI and NaF/SnCl2 differing only from DI. In root dentine, surface loss was as follows: CoSS < PrSS/pH 5.9 < (NaF/SnCl2 = DI), while PrSS/pH 4.5 = CoSS = PrSS/pH 5.9.


Sucralfate suspension provided anti-erosive protection to HCl-induced erosion.

Clinical relevance

Sucralfate may protect teeth against erosion caused by gastric acid.


Sucralfate Dental erosion Surface loss Enamel Dentine 



This study was supported by the Dental Erosion Program of the Oral Health Research Institute, Indiana University School of Dentistry, Indianapolis, IN, USA.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

For this type of study, formal consent is not required.


  1. 1.
    Tao DY, Hao G, Lu HX, Tian Y, Feng XP (2015) Dental erosion among children aged 3-6 years and its associated indicators. J Public Health Dent 75:291–297. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Strużycka I, Lussi A, Bogusławska-Kapała A, Rusyan E (2017) Prevalence of erosive lesions with respect to risk factors in a young adult population in Poland-a cross-sectional study. Clin Oral Investig 21:2197–2203. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Scaramucci T, Carvalho JC, Hara AT, Zero D (2015) Causes of dental erosion: intrinsic factors. In: Amaechi BT (ed) Dental erosion and its clinical management. Springer International Publishing, Switzerland, pp 35–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Moazzez R, Austin R (2018) Medical conditions and erosive tooth wear. Br Dent J 224:326–332. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shellis RP, Featherstone JD, Lussi A (2014) Understanding the chemistry of dental erosion. Monogr Oral Sci 25:163–179. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Moazzez R, Bartlett D (2014) Intrinsic causes of erosion. Monogr Oral Sci 25:180–196. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Carvalho TS, Colon P, Ganss C, Huysmans MC, Lussi A, Schlueter N, Schmalz G, Shellis PR, Björg Tveit A, Wiegand A (2015) Consensus report of the European Federation of Conservative Dentistry: erosive tooth wear – diagnosis and management. Clin Oral Investig 19:1557–1561. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hove LH, Holme B, Young A, Tveit AB (2008) The protective effect of TiF4, SnF2 and NaF against erosion-like lesions in situ. Caries Res 42:68–72CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hove LH, Stenhagen KR, Holme B, Tveit AB (2014) The protective effect of SnF2 containing toothpastes and solution on enamel surfaces subjected to erosion and abrasion in situ. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 15:237–243. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hove LH, Stenhagen KR, Mulic A, Holme B, Tveit AB (2015) May caries-preventive fluoride regimes have an effect on dental erosive wear? An in situ study. Acta Odontol Scand 73:114–120. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Messias DC, Turssi CP, Hara AT, Serra MC (2010) Sodium bicarbonate solution as an anti-erosive agent against simulated endogenous erosion. Eur J Oral Sci 118:385–388. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Passos VF, Rodrigues Gerage LK, Lima Santiago S (2017) Magnesium hydroxide-based dentifrice as an anti-erosive agent in an in situ intrinsic erosion model. Am J Dent 30:137–141PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Alves MS, Mantilla TF, Bridi EC, Basting RT, França FM, Amaral FL, Turssi CP (2016) Rinsing with antacid suspension reduces hydrochloric acid-induced erosion. Arch Oral Biol 61:66–70. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Weber MT, Hannig M, Pötschke S, Höhne F, Hannig C (2015) Application of plant extracts for the prevention of dental erosion: an in situ/in vitro study. Caries Res 49:477–487. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schlueter N, Neutard L, von Hinckeldey J, Klimek J, Ganss C (2010) Tin and fluoride as anti-erosive agents in enamel and dentine in vitro. Acta Odontol Scand 68:180–184. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nagashima R (1981) Mechanisms of action of sucralfate. J Clin Gastroenterol 3:117–127PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    McCarthy DM (1991) Sucralfate. N Engl J Med 325:1017–1025CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fox RK, Muniraj T (2016) Pharmacologic therapies in gastrointestinal diseases. Med Clin N Am 100:827–850. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cengiz M, Ozyar E, Oztürk D, Akyol F, Atahan IL, Hayran M (1999) Sucralfate in the prevention of radiation-induced oral mucositis. J Clin Gastroenterol 28:40–43CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ala S, Saeedi M, Janbabai G, Ganji R, Azhdari E, Shiva A (2016) Efficacy of sucralfate mouth wash in prevention of 5-fluorouracil induced oral mucositis: a prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled trial. Nutr Cancer 68:456–463. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    McCullough RW (2017) US oncology-wide incidence, duration, costs and deaths from chemoradiation mucositis and antimucositis therapy benefits. Future Oncol 13:2823–2852. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Scaramucci T, Hara AT, Zero DT, Ferreira SS, Aoki IV, Sobral MA (2011) In vitro evaluation of the erosive potential of orange juice modified by food additives in enamel and dentine. J Dent 39:841–848. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hove L, Holme B, Øgaard B, Willumsen T, Tveit AB (2006) The protective effect of TiF4, SnF2 and NaF on erosion of enamel by hydrochloric acid in vitro measured by white light interferometry. Caries Res 40:440–443CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Turssi CP, Vianna LM, Hara AT, do Amaral FL, França FM, Basting RT (2012) Counteractive effect of antacid suspensions on intrinsic dental erosion. Eur J Oral Sci 120:349–352. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Willumsen T, Ogaard B, Hansen BF, Rølla G (2004) Effects from pretreatment of stannous fluoride versus sodium fluoride on enamel exposed to 0.1 M or 0.01 M hydrochloric acid. Acta Odontol Scand 62:278–281CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ganss C, Lussi A, Sommer N, Klimek J, Schlueter N (2010) Efficacy of fluoride compounds and stannous chloride as erosion inhibitors in dentine. Caries Res 44:248–252. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Schlueter N, Klimek J, Ganss C (2011) Efficacy of tin-containing solutions on erosive mineral loss in enamel and dentine in situ. Clin Oral Investig 15:361–367. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Algarni AA, Lippert F, Hara AT (2015) Efficacy of stannous, fluoride and their combination in dentin erosion prevention in vitro. Braz Oral Res 29:1–5. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Scaramucci T, Borges AB, Lippert F, Zero DT, Aoki IV, Hara AT (2015) Anti-erosive properties of solutions containing fluoride and different film-forming agents. J Dent 43:458–465. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    He YN, Xu HM, Xu X, Dai HB (2015) Effects of pH on the suspension gel formation and free aluminum ions of sucralfate. Chin Pharm J 50:965–967. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Morris GP (1995) Binding of sucralfate to the mucosal surface. In: Tytgat GNJ, Hollander D (eds) Sucralfate from basic to the bedside. Plenun Publishing Corp, New York, pp 71–82Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Beltrame APCA, Suchyta D, Abd Alraheam I, Mohammed A, Schoenfisch M, Walter R, Almeida ICS, Souza LC, Miguez PA (2018) Effect of phosphorylated chitosan on dentin erosion: an in vitro study. Caries Res 52:378–386. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Babcock FD, King JC, Jordan TH (1978) The reaction of stannous fluoride and hydroxyapatite. J Dent Res 57:933–938CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cecilia P. Turssi
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Flávia L. B. Amaral
    • 1
  • Fabiana M. G. França
    • 1
  • Roberta T. Basting
    • 1
  • Anderson T. Hara
    • 3
  1. 1.Divisão de Cariologia e Odontologia RestauradoraFaculdade São Leopoldo Mandic, Instituto de Pesquisas São Leopoldo MandicCampinasBrazil
  2. 2.Instituto e Centro de Pesquisas Odontológicas São Leopoldo MandicCampinasBrazil
  3. 3.Department of Cariology, Operative Dentistry and Dental Public HealthIndiana University School of DentistryIndianapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations