The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 18 , ISSUE 11 ( November, 2017 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Dissolution of Enamel on Exposure to Various Commercial Beverages Available in India

Kailash C Dash, Abikshyeet Panda, Lipsa Bhuyan, Bikramaditya Ghosh, Imon Pal

Citation Information : Dash KC, Panda A, Bhuyan L, Ghosh B, Pal I. Dissolution of Enamel on Exposure to Various Commercial Beverages Available in India. J Contemp Dent Pract 2017; 18 (11):1009-1013.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2166

Published Online: 01-11-2017

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2017; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim

The study was aimed to estimate the pH of the commonly available soft drinks in the Indian market and to assess the detrimental effects of the juices and beverages on the tooth surface by measuring the weight loss of the tooth sample.

Materials and methods

The study was done with eight different types of commercially available carbonated drink and fruit juices available in the Indian market among which six were carbonated drinks and two were juices. Carbonated drinks experimented were Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Fanta, Mirinda, 7Up and Sprite, and two fruit juices were Tropicana orange juice and real orange juice. Ten different bottles from each category were obtained, and the pH was estimated. Each of the beverages was divided into batch of 10 containers containing the tooth sample. Weight of all samples was measured at 24, 48, 72, 96, and 120 hours with subsequently changing each solution at an interval of 24 hours.

Results

The mean pH of the beverages was found ranging from 2.13 ± 0.02 in Pepsi to 3.41 ± 0.02 in Tropicana on opening. The mean pH of water was found to be 6.98 ± 0.01. Among carbonated drinks, the mean weight loss after 24 hours was highest in Coca-Cola and least in 7Up. Tropicana fruit juice had a higher tooth loss than real orange juices. When compared with water, the tooth loss was significantly higher in Coca-Cola after all specified time (hours).

Conclusion

The pH of both carbonated drinks and fruit juices was below the critical pH. The weight loss was also seen after every 24 hours in all the carbonated drinks and beverages. The study showed that these commercial beverages are harmful to the tooth structures, and hence, the health professionals a major role in educating the population about its effects and advising them to use these products precisely.

Clinical significance

The change in lifestyle has increased the demand of soft drinks and artificial juice in Indian market. The use of these carbonated drinks and fruit juices causes damage to the tooth structure in all ages, especially in young mass. Our study provides an idea about the deleterious effects of these commercial drinks on dental hard tissues.

How to cite this article

Panda A, Ghosh B, Pal I, Kumar V, Bhuyan L, Dash KC. Dissolution of Enamel on Exposure to Various Commercial Beverages Available in India. J Contemp Dent Pract 2017;18(11):1009-1013.


PDF Share
  1. Effects of carbonated drinks and fruit juices on salivary pH of children: an in-vitro study. Int J Sci Study 2013 Oct-Dec;1(3):60-69.
  2. Effects of carbonated cola beverages, spots and energy drinks and orange juice on primary and permanent enamel dissolution. Austin J Dent 2014 Jun;1(1):1004.
  3. Enamel erosion by some soft drinks and orange juices relative to their pH, buffering effect and contents of calcium phosphate. Caries Res 1999 May;33(1):81-87.
  4. Enamel solubility potential of commercially available soft drinks and fruit juices in Saudi Arabia. Saudi J Dent Res 2015 Jul;6(2):106-109.
  5. Migration of fluoride in the mouth. Caries Res 1984;18(4):348-353.
  6. Etiology of dental erosion–extrinsic factors. Eur J Oral Sci 1996 Apr;104(2 Pt 2):162-177.
  7. Progression of and risk factors for dental erosion and wedge-shaped defects over a 6-year period. Caries Res 2000 Mar-Apr;34(2):182-187.
  8. Oral pH and drinking habit during ingestion of a carbonated drink in a group of adolescents with dental erosion. J Dent 2000 Aug;28(6):395-397.
  9. A comparison of acidic dietary factors in children with and without dental erosion. ASDC J Dent Child 2000 May-Jun;67(3):186-192, 160.
  10. Risk factors for dental erosion in 5-6 year old and 12-14 year old boys in Saudi Arabia. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2002 Feb;30(1):38-46.
  11. Comparison of factors potentially related to the occurrence of dental erosion in high and low-erosion groups. Eur J Oral Sci 2002 Jun;110(3):204-211.
  12. Lessening dental erosive potential by product modification. Eur J Oral Sci 1996 Apr;104(2 Pt 2):221-228.
  13. The influence of different factors on in-vitro enamel erosion. Caries Res 1993 Feb;27(5):387-395.
  14. Sports drinks hazard to teeth. Br J Sports Med 1997 Mar;31(1):28-30.
  15. Influence of a soft drink with low pH on enamel surfaces: an in vitro study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005 Sep;128(3):372-377.
  16. Dissolution of dental enamel in soft drinks. Gen Dent 2004 Jul-Aug;52(4):308-312.
  17. Chemical factors. Monogr Oral Sci 2006;20:77-87.
  18. Effects of pH and concentration of citric, malic and lactic acids on enamel, in vitro. J Dent 2000 Feb;28(2):147-152.
  19. Impact of modified acidic soft drinks on enamel erosion. Oral Dis 2005 Jan;11(1):7-12.
  20. Soft drinks and dental health: a review of the current literature. J Dent 2006 Jan;34(1):2-11.
  21. Evaluating the buffering capacity of various soft drinks, fruit juices and tea. J Conserv Dent 2010 Oct;13(3):129-131.
  22. Dental erosion-the problem and some practical solutions. Br Dent J 1998 Feb;186(3):115-118.
  23. Evaluation of acidity and total sugar content of children's popular beverages and their effect on plaque pH. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2010 Jul-Sep;28(3):189-192.
  24. Buffering capacities of soft drinks: the potential influence on dental erosion. J Oral Rehabil 1999 Dec;26(12):923-927.
  25. Estimated erosive potential depends on exposure time. J Dent 2012 Dec;40(12):1103-1108.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.