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.
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.