Loading [MathJax]/jax/output/HTML-CSS/fonts/TeX/fontdata.js

Journal List > J Korean Acad Oral Health > v.37(3) > 1057558

Lee, Hong, and Choi: Erosive effect of hangover-curing beverages on enamel surface

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.

Conclusions

Some hangover-curing beverages with low pH could induce dental erosion on enamel surface.

Go to : Goto

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.
crossref
2. Imfeld T. Dental erosion, Definition, classification and links. Eur J Oral Sci. 1996; 104:151–155.
crossref
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.
crossref
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.
crossref
8. Brunton PA, Hussain A. The erosive effect of herbal tea on dental enamel. J Dent. 2001; 29:517–520.
crossref
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.
crossref
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.
crossref
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.
crossref
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.
crossref
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.
crossref
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.
crossref
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.
crossref
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.
crossref
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.
crossref
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 : Goto

jkaoh-37-119f1.tif
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).
undefined
Table 1.
Hangover beverages used in the experiment
Classification Brand name Manufacturer
Mixed beverage Condition power Cheiljedang
Dawn808 Glami
Morning Care Dong-A pharm
Hutge morning happy time Kung nam pharm
Hutge thankyou Jongkundang
Good morning power Jongkundang health
Altin zero Borung
Again Borung
Doctor zero Yakult
Choa Antichake gold Cho-a pharmaceutical company
Morning power Food science
Sok-pul-eo Wales Korea pharm
Distilled water (control) -
Table 2.
The pH and titratable acidity of hangover beverages
Brand name pH Titratable acidity Added acid
pH 5.5 pH 7.0
Condition power 3.64±0.02 2.2±0.01 3.4±0.05 Citric
Dawn808 4.53±0.02 0.5±0.00 0.8±0.00 -
Morning Care 3.35±0.01 3.2±0.20 4.1±0.50 Citric
Hutge morning happy time 3.33±0.01 1.5±0.01 1.8±0.01 Citric
Hutge thankyou 2.87±0.00 1.0±0.01 1.4±0.01 Citric
Goodmorning power 2.90±0.03 1.7±0.01 2.0±0.01 Citric
Altin zero 2.76±0.01 2.0±0.07 2.6±0.10 Citric
Again 3.43±0.00 1.5±0.01 1.8±0.01 Citric
Doctor zero 4.65±0.01 0.3±0.00 0.8±0.00 -
Choa Antichake gold 3.76±0.00 2.5±0.01 2.7±0.05 Citric
Morning power 4.20±0.01 1.0±0.00 1.5±0.00 Citric
Sok-pul-eo 3.88±0.01 1.5±0.00 2.0±0.05 Aspartic
Distilled water (control) 6.17±0.01 - 0.01±0.00 -

All values are mean±SD.

Table 3.
The concentration levels of F, Ca and P in treatment groups
F (ppm) Ca (mg/kg) P (mg/kg)
Condition power 0.08±0.00 42.8±0.00 418.91±1.65
Dawn808 4.90 ±0.40 178.9±0.00 34.65±0.33
Morning Care 0.01±0.00 11.7±0.00 401.24±3.37
Distilled water (control) <0.01 8.0±0.01 -

All values are mean±SD.

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

All values are mean±SD. *Statistically significant by repeated measured ANOVA at the 0.05 level.

a .bThe same letter indicates no significant difference by Tukey.

TOOLS
Similar articles