The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 15 , ISSUE 1 ( January-February, 2014 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Comparative Evaluation of Cariogenic and Erosive Potential of Commonly Prescribed Pediatric Liquid Medicaments: An in vitro Study

Meenakshi Nankar, Hrishikesh Walimbe, Mohammed Nadeem Ahmed Bijle, Ujwal Kontham, Ananth Kamath, Sneha Muchandi

Citation Information : Nankar M, Walimbe H, Bijle MN, Kontham U, Kamath A, Muchandi S. Comparative Evaluation of Cariogenic and Erosive Potential of Commonly Prescribed Pediatric Liquid Medicaments: An in vitro Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2014; 15 (1):20-25.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1481

Published Online: 00-02-2014

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2014; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Introduction

Liquid oral medicines being the most accepted form of medication in children are frequently prescribed. The harmful effects of these liquid medicaments on a child's dental health are not known to many. The present study aimed to evaluate and compare the cariogenic and erosive potential of 5 most commonly prescribed pediatric liquid medicaments (PLM) in Pimpri Chinchwad and Pune city, Pune district.

Materials and methods

Most commonly prescribed PLM in Pune district were selected as opined by 50 pediatricians. The selected medicaments were Syr. Augmentin®Duo, Syr. Valparin®, Syr. Combiflam®, Syr. Visyneral and Syr. Orofer®. An estimation of pH, percentage of sucrose concentration and calcium dissolving capacity of these preparations was carried out. The results as obtained were subjected to statistical analysis using SPSS v 17.0 for windows. The statistical test as undertaken was Pearson's correlation coefficient(r).

Results

Sucrose was seen to be present in Syr. Combiflam® (35.75% ± 0.25%) and Syr. Visyneral (18.48% ± 0.43%). Acidic pH was observed for Syr. Visyneral (mean pH 3.63 ± 0.04), Syr. Combiflam® (mean pH 5.03 ± 0.02) and Syr. Augmentin® (mean pH 6.22 ± 0.02). Highest calcium dissolution was seen with Syr. Combiflam® (295.86 mg/ml) and the least with Syr. Orofer® (25.51 mg/ml). No statistical significant correlation was observed with calcium dissolution potential of PLM in comparison with their respective pH.

Conclusion

Syr. Combiflam® can be regarded as the highest cariogenic and erosive potential medicament among the compared and tested PLM.

Clinical significance

Considering syrups with high cariogenic and erosive potential should always follow with proper oral hygiene practices or search for an alternative drugs void of such detrimental effects.

How to cite this article

Nankar M, Walimbe H, Bijle MNA, Kontham U, Kamath A, Muchandi S. Comparative Evaluation of Cariogenic and Erosive Potential of Commonly Prescribed Pediatric Liquid Medicaments: An in vitro Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2014;15(1):20-25.


PDF Share
  1. Routes for drug administration in children. In: Joshi N, editor. Guidelines for Pediatric Drug Prescribing for Family Physicians. New Delhi: Popular Prakashan; 2005. pp. 5.
  2. The role of medication and sugars in pediatric dental patients. Dent Clin North Am 2000;44:443-456.
  3. The role of sucrose in cariogenic dental biofilm formation—new insight. J Dent Res 2006;85:878-887.
  4. Are sugar free medicines more erosive than sugar containing medicines? An in vitro study of pediatric medicines with prolonged oral clearance used regularly and long term by children. Int J Paediatr Dent 2007;17:231-238.
  5. A literature review of dental erosion in children. Aust Dent J 2010;55:358-367.
  6. Diagnosis and management of dental erosion. J Contemp Dent Pract 1999;1(1):1-17.
  7. The role of saliva in dental erosion and a prosthetic approach to treatment: a case report. J Contemp Dent Pract 2009;10(3):74-80.
  8. Erosive effect of an antihistamine-containing syrup on primary enamel and its reduction by fluoride dentifrice. Int J Paediatr Dent 2006;16:174-180.
  9. Effect of pediatric syrups on roughness and erosion of enamel. Honolulu: IADR 82nd General Session and Exhibition; 2004.
  10. Pediatric liquid medicaments- do they erode the teeth surface? An in vitro study: Part I. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2008;32:189-194.
  11. Morphology evaluation of primary enamel exposed to antihistamine and fluoride dentifrice—an in vitro study. Gen Dent 2006;54(1):21-27.
  12. An analysis of the etiological and predisposing factors related to dentinal hypersensitivity. J Contemp Dent Pract 2008;9(5):52-59.
  13. Dental health of children taking antimicrobial and nonantimicrobial liquid oral medication long term. Caries Res 1996;30(1):16-21.
  14. A comparison of oral hygiene status and dental caries in children on long-term liquid oral medications to those not administered with such medications. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2002;20(4):144-151.
  15. pH of medicated syrups—does it really matter?—an in vitro study. Part II. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2008;33:137-142.
  16. The destructive effect of citrate vs lactate ions on rats molar tooth surfaces in vivo. J Dent Res 1946;25:1-12.
  17. Effect of the presence of dental plaque on oral sugar clearance and salivary pH: An in vivo study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2012;13(6):753-755.
  18. Pediatric medication-Sweetener agents and pH. J Bras Odontoped Odonto Bebe 2000;3:457-463.
  19. Sugar load of oral liquid medications on chronically ill children. J Can Dent Assoc 1989;55:43-46.
  20. What do pregnant women know about oral health? J Bras Odontoped Odonto Bebe 2001;4:429-434.
  21. Cariogenic potential of pediatric liquid medicaments—an in vitro study. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2012;36(4):357-362.
  22. Erosion of deciduous and permanent dental hard tissues in the oral environment. J Dent 2000;28:257-263.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.