Aim: compare remineralizing potential and antibacterial effect of different mouthwashes applied to artificially demineralized enamel in acidic challenges. Materials and methods: A total of 20 specimens were used and divided into four main groups according to the mouthwash used: Group 1: Listerine; Total Care Teeth Protect, Group 2: Listerine; Total Care Teeth & Gum Defense Group 3: DG WASH (Fluoride mouthwash) and Group 4: no mouth (control group). To evaluate remineralizing potential: first all specimens were exposed to37.5% phosphoric acid for 90 seconds to promote the demineralization of enamel then followed by application of different selected mouthwashes to initiating re-mineralization process. All groups undergo acidic challenge by repeated cycles of de-mineralization and re-mineralization then tested for surface micro hardness at 3 different time intervals. The selected re-mineralizing solutions were assessed for their antibacterial effect against streptococcus mutans by using zone of inhibition test at 24, 48 hours. Results: Micro hardness; there was a significant difference between tested groups with Listerine GP and saliva groups having significantly higher values than Listerine TP while for other intervals the difference was not significant. For DG wash, there was significant difference between different intervals. Bacterial test; there was a significant difference between tested groups with Listerine TP and Listerine GP having significantly higher values than other groups and with DG wash having significantly higher value than saliva group. Conclusions: combination of fluoride and essential oils has a synergetic effect of both actions regarding the re-mineralization and antibacterial potentially as compared to their effect alone.