Home Subscription Services
 
 
Loading
NEW
Sign Up to Receive Quintessence Updates by Email
 

 
Quintessence International
QI Home Page
About the Editor
Editorial Board
Accepted Manuscripts
Submit
Author Guidelines
Submission Form
Reprints / Articles
Permissions
Advertising
MEDLINE Search
 
 
 
 
 
FacebookTwitterYouTubeRSS
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.
  © 2013 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