Home Subscription Services
 
   

 
Quintessence International
QI Home Page
About the Editor
Editorial Board
Accepted Manuscripts
Submit
Author Guidelines
Submission Form
Reprints / Articles
Permissions
Advertising
MEDLINE Search
 
 
 
 
 
FacebookTwitterYouTube
Quintessence Publishing: Journals: QI
Quintessence International

Edited by Eli Eliav

ISSN 0033-6572 (print) • ISSN 1936-7163 (online)

Publication:
March 2011
Volume 42 , Issue 3

Back
Share Abstract:

An in situ/ex vivo comparison of the ability of regular and light colas to induce enamel wear when erosion is combined with abrasion

Daniela Rios, DDS, PhD/Flávia Cardoso Zaidan Santos/Heitor Marques Honório, DDS, PhD/Ana Carolina Magalhães, DDS, PhD/Linda Wang, DDS, PhD/Maria Aparecida de Andrade Moreira Machado, DDS, PhD/Marília Afonso Rabelo Buzalaf, DDS, PhD

PMID: 21465003

Objective: To evaluate whether the type of cola drink (regular or diet) could influence the wear of enamel subjected to erosion followed by brushing abrasion. Method and Materials: Ten volunteers wore intraoral devices that each had eight bovine enamel blocks divided into four groups: ER, erosion with regular cola; EAR, erosion with regular cola plus abrasion; EL, erosion with light cola; and EAL, erosion with light cola plus abrasion. Each day for 1 week, half of each device was immersed in regular cola for 5 minutes. Then, two blocks were brushed using a fluoridated toothpaste and electric toothbrush for 30 seconds four times daily. Immediately after, the other half of the device was subjected to the same procedure using a light cola. The pH, calcium, phosphorus, and fluoride concentrations of the colas were analyzed using standard procedures. Enamel alterations were measured by profilometry. Data were tested using two-way ANOVA and Bonferroni test (P < .05). Results: Regarding chemical characteristics, light cola presented pH 3.0, 13.7 mg Ca/L, 15.5 mg P/L, and 0.31 mg F/L, while regular cola had pH 2.6, 32.1 mg Ca/L, 18.1 mg P/L, and 0.26 mg F/L. The light cola promoted less enamel loss (EL, 0.36 µm; EAL, 0.39 µm) than its regular counterpart (ER, 0.72 µm; EAR, 0.95 µm) for both conditions. There was not a significant difference (P > .05) between erosion and erosion plus abrasion for light cola. However, for regular cola, erosion plus abrasion resulted in higher enamel loss than erosion alone. Conclusion: The data suggest that light cola promoted less enamel wear even when erosion was followed by brushing abrasion.

(Quintessence Int 2011;42:e44–e50)

Full Text PDF File | Order Article

 

Get Adobe Reader
Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to view PDF files. This is a free program available from the Adobe web site.
Follow the download directions on the Adobe web site to get your copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader.
  © 2014 Quintessence Publishing Co Inc
 

Home | Subscription Services | Books | Journals | Multimedia | Events | Blog
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | About Us | Contact Us | Advertising | Help | Sitemap | Catalog