Abstract
Objectives
The aim of present study was to evaluate the effect of hangover-curing beverages on dental erosion.
Methods
The pH and titratable acidity of 12 hangover-curing beverages were measured. Of these, we selected Morning Care, Condition Power, and Dawn 808 as experimental beverages and distilled water as control. The concentrations of fluoride, Ca, and P were measured for all four beverages. Bovine tooth enamel samples were treated with the four beverages for 1, 3, 5, 10, 15, and 30 min. Surface microhardness (Vickers hardness number [VHN]) was measured using the microhardness tester before and after treatment. The surface of specimens was observed under a scanning electron microscope (SEM) only after treatment.
Results
1) The average pH of the hangover-curing beverages was 3.6±0.06. 2) The differences between the surface microhardness (ΔVHN) before and after 30-min treatment were statistically significant among all the groups (P<0.05). According to SEM findings, Morning Care and Condition Power caused showed erosion of enamel surface. However, Dawn 808, which contained Ca (178.9 mg/kg) and fluoride (4.90 ppm), did not erode enamel after immersion for 30 min.
Go to : 

References
1. Featherstone JD, Mellberg JR. Relative rates of progress of artificial carious lesions in bovine, ovine and human enamel. Caries Res. 1981; 15:109–114.


2. Imfeld T. Dental erosion, Definition, classification and links. Eur J Oral Sci. 1996; 104:151–155.


3. Scheutzel P. Etiology of dental erosion intrinsic factors. Eur J Oral Sci. 1996; 104:178–190.
4. Zero DT. Etiology of dental erosion-extrinsic factor. Eur J Oral Sci. 1996; 104:162–177.
5. Srinivasan N, Kavitha M, Loganathan SC. Comparison of the remineralization potential of CPP-ACP and CPP-ACP with 900 ppm fluoride on eroded human enamel: An in situ study. Arch Oral Biol. 2001; 55:541–544.
6. Attin T, Weiss K, Becker K, Buchalla W, Wiegand A. Impact of modified acidic soft drinks on enamel erosion. Oral Dis. 2005; 11:7–12.


7. Birkhed D. Sugar content, acidity and effect on plaque pH of fruit juices, fruit drinks, carbonated beverages and sport drinks. Caries Res. 1984; 18:120–127.


8. Brunton PA, Hussain A. The erosive effect of herbal tea on dental enamel. J Dent. 2001; 29:517–520.


9. Shim JH, Jeong TS, Kim S. A study on the enamel erosion by fermented milks. J Korean Acad Pediatr Dent. 2004; 31:555–561.
10. Brown CJ, Smith G, Shaw L, Parry J, Smith AJ. The erosive potential of flavoured sparkling water drinks. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2007; 17:86–91.


11. Ministry of Health and Welfare. Beverages safety survey. Seoul: Ministry of Health and Welfare;2000. p. 16–17.
12. Ministry of Health and Welfare. Fermented milk and children beverages safety survey. Seoul: Ministry of Health and Welfare;2005. p. 5–6. 12.
13. Statistics Korea. International Statistic Year book. Seoul: Statistics Korea;2008. p. 490.
14. Donga News. Korea has fallen into the liquor jug [Internet]. [cited 2013 Jul 14]. Available from:. http://news.donga.com/3/all/20011217/7770145/1.
15. Korea food information institute. Market trends of beverage for after drinking. Seoul: Korea food information institute;2009. p. 38–43.
16. Choson News. The war of pharmaceutical companies for hangover beverage [Internet]. [cited 2013 Jul 14]. Available from:. http://biz.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2010/01/28/2010012840017.html.
17. Shin YH, Kim YJ. Study on enamel erosion of the primary teeth caused by children beverage. J Korean Acad Pediatr Dent. 2009; 36:227–234.
18. Hwang SH. Surface micro-hardness and color changes caused by commercial alcoholic drinks on composite resin material [master’ s thesis]. Gwangju: Chonnam National University;2010. [Korean].
19. Lussi A, Jaeggi T, Jaeggi-Schärer S. Prediction of the erosive potential of some beverages. Caries Res. 1995; 29:349–354.


20. Rytömaa I, Meurman JH, Koskinen J, Laakso T, Gharazi L, Turunen R. In vitro erosion of bovine enamel caused by acidic drinks and other foodstuffs. Scand J Dent Res. 1988; 96:324–333.
21. West NX, Hughes JA, Addy M. The effect of pH on the erosion of dentine and enamel by dietary acids in vitro. J Oral Rehabil. 2001; 28:860–864.


22. Meurman JH, Häarköonen M, Näaveri H, Koskinen J, Torkko H, Rytöomaa I, et al. Experimental sports drinks with minimal dental erosion effect. Scand J Dent Res. 1990; 98:120–128.


23. Attin T, Meyer K, Hellwig E, Buchalla W, Lennon AM. Effect of mineral supplements to citric acid on enamel erosion. Arch Oral Biol. 2003; 48:753–759.


24. Kim YJ. Effect of soft drinks on dental hydroxyapatite [dissertation]. Seoul: Dongguk University;2003. [Korean].
25. Larsen MJ, Nyvad B. Enamel erosion by some soft drinks and orange juices relative to their pH, buffering effect and contents of calcium phosphate. Caries Res. 1999; 33:81–87.


26. Hooper S, Hughes J, Parker D, Finke M, Newcombe RG, Addy M, et al. Clinical study in situ to assess the effect of a food approved polymer on the erosion potential of drinks. J Dent. 2007; 35:541–546.
27. Tahmassebi JF, Duggal MS, Malik-Kotru G, Curzon ME. Soft drinks and dental health:a review of the current literature. J Dent. 2006; 34:2–11.
28. Larsen MJ, Richards A. Fluoride is unable to reduce dental erosion from soft drinks. Caries Res. 2002; 36:75–80.


29. Sorvari R, Kiviranta I, Luoma H. Erosive effect of a sport drink mixture with and without addition of fluoride and magnesium on the molar teeth of rats. Scand J Dent Res. 1988; 96:226–231.


30. Hughes JA, West NX, Addy M. The protective effect of fluoride treatments against enamel erosion in vitro. J Oral Rehabil. 2004; 31:357–363.


31. Larsen MJ. Prevention by means of fluoride of enamel erosion as caused by soft drinks and orange juice. Caries Res. 2001; 35:229–234.
Go to : 

![]() | Fig. 1.SEM findings on enamel surface of experimental groups after treatment (A: Condition power×50,000, B: Dawn808×50,000, C: Morning Care×50,000, D: Distilled water×50,000). |
Table 1.
Hangover beverages used in the experiment
Table 2.
The pH and titratable acidity of hangover beverages
Table 3.
The concentration levels of F, Ca and P in treatment groups
Table 4.
Comparisons of surface microhardness according to immersion time of beverages on enamel Unit: VHN
Time (min) | Beverage* | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Condition powerb | Dawn808a | Morning Careb | Distilled watera | |
0 | 300.75±11.77 | 300.65±10.08 | 300.06±8.12 | 300.42±7.30 |
1 | 298.64±12.93 | 300.75±10.39 | 298.49±7.78 | 300.40±7.19 |
3 | 291.65±12.60 | 300.25±10.28 | 295.13±7.99 | 300.35±7.18 |
5 | 281.66±13.75 | 300.27±9.33 | 282.62±10.12 | 300.39±7.34 |
10 | 264.16±11.68 | 299.55±9.27 | 251.11±8.89 | 300.44±7.27 |
15 | 245.30±13.75 | 299.45±8.73 | 231.78±8.42 | 300.17±7.24 |
30 | 219.90±16.92 | 299.29±8.71 | 192.64±7.61 | 299.81±7.53 |