BACKGROUND: Dental erosion has become a relevant public health problem in recent years and is related to the increase in the consumption of acidic beverages. Objective: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the erosive potential of energy drinks on dental enamel using an in vitro erosion model. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Thirty-eight blocks of human enamel were divided into four groups: G1- TNT Energy Drink®(n=8), G2- Red Bull® (n=10), G3- Monster Energy® (n=10), and G4- Coca-Cola® (n=10) (positive control). For the chemical analysis, the pH values, titratable acidity, and buffering capacity of the beverages were measured in triplicate. For the erosive test, the specimens were immersed in the beverages (5ml/block) for 30 minutes at room temperature with gentle shaking. Initial and final surface microhardness values were measured and the percentage of the loss of surface microhardness was calculated. Profilometry (surface loss and lesion depth) and mineral loss analysis (quantitative light-induced fluorescence) were performed. The data were analysed statistically using ANOVA followed by the Bonferroni correction, Pearson's correlation test, and multiple linear regression (p<0.05). RESULTS: The energy drinks had pH values ranging from 2.36 to 3.41. The lowest titratable acidity value was recorded for Monster Energy® and the highest was recorded for TNT Energy Drink®. All energy drinks had buffering capacity values higher than Coca-Cola®. Analysing the eroded enamel surface, the specimens submitted to TNT Energy Drink® had the greatest percentage loss of surface microhardness, surface loss, depth, and mineral loss, followed by those submitted to Red Bull® and Monster Energy®. Surface loss was the only predictor of mineral loss (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Based on the study model employed, all the energy drinks examined were erosive to tooth enamel and TNT Energy Drink® had the worst behaviour. Key words:Energy drinks, tooth erosion, tooth demineralisation, hardness tests, quantitative light-induced fluorescence. Copyright:
BACKGROUND: Dental erosion has become a relevant public health problem in recent years and is related to the increase in the consumption of acidic beverages. Objective: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the erosive potential of energy drinks on dental enamel using an in vitro erosion model. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Thirty-eight blocks of human enamel were divided into four groups: G1- TNT Energy Drink®(n=8), G2- Red Bull® (n=10), G3- Monster Energy® (n=10), and G4- Coca-Cola® (n=10) (positive control). For the chemical analysis, the pH values, titratable acidity, and buffering capacity of the beverages were measured in triplicate. For the erosive test, the specimens were immersed in the beverages (5ml/block) for 30 minutes at room temperature with gentle shaking. Initial and final surface microhardness values were measured and the percentage of the loss of surface microhardness was calculated. Profilometry (surface loss and lesion depth) and mineral loss analysis (quantitative light-induced fluorescence) were performed. The data were analysed statistically using ANOVA followed by the Bonferroni correction, Pearson's correlation test, and multiple linear regression (p<0.05). RESULTS: The energy drinks had pH values ranging from 2.36 to 3.41. The lowest titratable acidity value was recorded for Monster Energy® and the highest was recorded for TNT Energy Drink®. All energy drinks had buffering capacity values higher than Coca-Cola®. Analysing the eroded enamel surface, the specimens submitted to TNT Energy Drink® had the greatest percentage loss of surface microhardness, surface loss, depth, and mineral loss, followed by those submitted to Red Bull® and Monster Energy®. Surface loss was the only predictor of mineral loss (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Based on the study model employed, all the energy drinks examined were erosive to tooth enamel and TNT Energy Drink® had the worst behaviour. Key words:Energy drinks, tooth erosion, tooth demineralisation, hardness tests, quantitative light-induced fluorescence. Copyright:
Authors: T S Carvalho; P Colon; C Ganss; M C Huysmans; A Lussi; N Schlueter; G Schmalz; R P Shellis; A B Tveit; A Wiegand Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2015-07-01 Impact factor: 3.573