Mary A S de Melo1, Vanara F Passos2, Juliana P M Lima3, Gabriela C Parente4, Lidiany K A Rodrigues3, Sérgio L Santiago3. 1. Department of Endodontics, Prosthodontics, and Operative Dentistry, University of Maryland Dental School, Baltimore, Md., USA. maryannesmelo@yahoo.com. 2. Edson Queiroz Foundation, University of Fortaleza, Fortaleza, Ceará, Brazil. 3. Department of Dentistry, Faculty of Pharmacy, Dentistry and Nursing; at the Federal University of Ceará, Fortaleza, Ceará, Brazil. 4. Federal University of Ceará, Fortaleza, Ceará, Brazil.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to analyze the erosive potential of processed and fresh orange juice on human enamel. METHODS: Sixty enamel slabs, incubated in human saliva to develop acquired pellicle, were exposed to processed and freshly squeezed juice from oranges and lime oranges. Daily erosive cycles were performed by immersing the slabs in the juices for 20 minutes over five days. During the intervals, the samples were immersed in artificial saliva. The pH, titratable acidity (TA), and buffer capacity (β) of the juices were determined. Analysis of variance and Tukey's tests were used to compare the percentage of surface hardness loss and the amount of wear between groups. RESULTS: The ranges of pH, TA, and β were 3.66 to 3.75, 3.33 to 110 mmol/L, and 2.98 to 40.97 mmol/L × pH, respectively. A similar erosive potential was found for all groups, except for the lime orange juices (P<.05). CONCLUSION: Both processed and freshly squeezed orange juices were erosive to enamel. However, the lime orange juice was acidless and, therefore, not able to produce any significant changes in enamel.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to analyze the erosive potential of processed and fresh orange juice on human enamel. METHODS: Sixty enamel slabs, incubated in human saliva to develop acquired pellicle, were exposed to processed and freshly squeezed juice from oranges and lime oranges. Daily erosive cycles were performed by immersing the slabs in the juices for 20 minutes over five days. During the intervals, the samples were immersed in artificial saliva. The pH, titratable acidity (TA), and buffer capacity (β) of the juices were determined. Analysis of variance and Tukey's tests were used to compare the percentage of surface hardness loss and the amount of wear between groups. RESULTS: The ranges of pH, TA, and β were 3.66 to 3.75, 3.33 to 110 mmol/L, and 2.98 to 40.97 mmol/L × pH, respectively. A similar erosive potential was found for all groups, except for the lime orange juices (P<.05). CONCLUSION: Both processed and freshly squeezed orange juices were erosive to enamel. However, the lime orange juice was acidless and, therefore, not able to produce any significant changes in enamel.