Erosive tooth wear (ETW) refers to the chemical dissolution of mineralized tissues by acids of non-bacterial origin. It occurs in the primary as well as the permanent dentition. In this study, our objectives were to investigate and compare the impact of chlorhexidine gluconate (CHX), essential oils (EO), and cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) on ETW protection produced by conventional fluoride kinds of toothpaste. A clinically relevant in-vitro erosion/abrasion pH cycling model was employed to test the effect of the aforementioned mouthwashes on modulating the ability of NaF and SnF2 types of toothpaste. The mean dentin surface loss associated with NaF toothpaste was significantly lower than for the SnF2 toothpaste. On the other hand, enamel surface loss with SnF2 toothpaste was significantly lower than for the NaF toothpaste. Also, the surface loss of erosion was significantly higher when associated with abrasion than without brushing and for both enamel and dentin. There was no significant difference in the surface loss among all types of mouthwash. Commonly used types of mouthwash containing antimicrobial agents or additional fluoride do not impact fluoride toothpaste action on erosion/abrasion. Also, considering erosion only, the tested SnF2 dentifrice provided better protection against surface loss of enamel than the other.