We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
Quintessence International



Forgotten password?


Quintessence Int 42 (2011), No. 3     9. Feb. 2011
Quintessence Int 42 (2011), No. 3  (09.02.2011)

Online Article, Page 270, PubMed:21465003

Online Article: An in situ/ex vivo comparison of the ability of regular and light colas to induce enamel wear when erosion is combined with abrasion
Rios, Daniela / Santos, Flávia Cardoso Zaidan / Honório, Heitor Marques / Magalhães, Ana Carolina / Wang, Linda / Machado, Maria Aparecida de Andrade Moreira / Buzalaf, Marília Afonso Rabelo
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.

Keywords: abrasion, enamel, erosion, in situ, soft drinks