4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

Acidic beverages increase the risk of in vitro tooth erosion

期刊

NUTRITION RESEARCH
卷 28, 期 5, 页码 299-303

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.nutres.2008.03.001

关键词

beverages; erosion; tooth; enamel; root; human

资金

  1. NIDCR NIH HHS [T32 DE014678-04, T32 DE014678] Funding Source: Medline
  2. PHS HHS [T32 DEO14678-04] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Acidic beverages are thought to increase the potential for dental erosion. We report pH and titratable acidities (ie, quantity of base required to bring a solution to neutral pH) of beverages popular in the United States and lesion depths in enamel and root surfaces after beverage exposure, and we describe associations among pH, titratable acidity, and both enamel and root erosive lesion depths. The pH of 100% juices, regular sodas, diet sodas, and sports drinks upon opening and the titratable acidity both upon opening and after 60 minutes of stirring were measured. Enamel and root surfaces of healthy permanent molars and premolars were exposed to individual beverages (4 enamel and 4 root surfaces per beverage) for 25 hours, and erosion was measured. Statistical analyses included 2-sample t tests, analyses of variance with post hoc Tukey studentized range test; and Spearman rank correlation coefficients. All beverages were acidic; the titratable acidity of energy drinks was greater than that of regular and diet sodas that were greater than that of 100% juices and sports drinks (P <.05). Enamel lesion depths after beverage exposures were greatest for Gatorade, followed by those for Red Bull and Coke that were greater than those for Diet Coke and 100% apple juice (P <.05). Root lesion depths were greatest for Gatorade, followed by Red Bull, Coke, 100% apple juice, and Diet Coke (P <.05). Lesion depths were not associated with pH or titratable acidity. Beverages popular in the United States can produce dental erosion. (c) 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据