Journal List > J Korean Acad Oral Health > v.42(4) > 1110906

TOOLS
Seon, Yun, Kim, Jeong, and Choi: Dental erosive effects of fluoride-containing tea beverages with low pH
Original Article

J Korean Acad Oral Health 2018;42(4):118-123.

Published online: 15 December 2018

DOI: https://doi.org/10.11149/jkaoh.2018.42.4.118

Dental erosive effects of fluoride-containing tea beverages with low pH

Su-Yun Seon1, In-Gyeong Yun1, Ji-Eun Kim1, Seong-Soog Jeong1, 2, Choong-Ho Choi1, 2,

1Department of Preventive Dentistry & Public Health Dentistry, Chonnam National University School of Dentistry, Gwangju, Korea

2Dental Science Research Institute, Chonnam National University School of Dentistry, Gwangju, Korea

Corresponding Author: Choong-Ho Choi Department of Preventive Dentistry & Public Health Dentistry, Chonnam National University School of Dentistry, 33 Yongbong-ro, Buk-gu, Gwangju 61186, Korea Tel: +82-62-530-5839 Fax: +82-62-530-5810 E-mail: hochoi@chonnam.ac.kr

Received 11 July 2018       Revised 7 September 2018       Accepted 2 October 2018

Copyright © 2018 by Journal of Korean Academy of Oral Health

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Objective

This study aimed to investigate the effects of fluoride-containing acidic tea beverages on bovine teeth surfaces.

Methods

The pH values and fluoride concentrations of 11 kinds of mineral water and 23 kinds of tea were measured. The fluoride-containing Seopyenje black tea beverages with pH 3.48 were chosen for the experimental group. Distilled water that did not contain fluoride and had the same pH value as that of the Seopyenje black teas served as the positive control. The Jeju Samdasoo mineral waters with neural pH (pH 7.52) and no fluoride were chosen as the negative control. Bovine teeth in each group were submerged for 10 minutes. Thereafter, surface microhardness of each bovine teeth was measured and the results were analyzed.

Results

The pH value range was 6.94-8.09 (mean=7.37±0.08) for the 11 kinds of mineral water and 3.48-6.74 (5.62±0.05) for the 23 tea beverages. Titratable acidity of the Seopyenje black tea beverages was higher than that of the distilled water mixed with citric acid, and the pH was 5.5 and 7.0, respectively. The fluoride content of the 11 kinds of mineral water was 0-1.09 ppm (mean=0.44±0.02 ppm) that of the 23 tea beverages was and 0-0.74 ppm (0.64±0.06 ppm). In terms of enamel microhardness reduction of the bovine teeth, the tea beverages had the largest effects. There was no significant difference in microhardness reduction between the tea beverages and distilled water mixed with citric acid (P>0.05). Conversely, a significant difference was found between the kinds of mineral water and tea beverages, and also between mineral water and distilled water mixed with citric acid (P<0.05).

Conclusions

Acidic tea beverages appeared to erode the surfaces of bovine teeth. The amount of fluoride in the tea beverages was not enough to inhibit erosion. Therefore, frequent intakes of acidic tea beverage are likely to increase erosion on the surfaces of bovine teeth, by affecting the enamel microhardness of teeth.

References

1. Han DH, Lee UJ, Kim DH, Kim MJ, Hwang SJ, Kim JB. Evaluation of fluoride concentration in tea drink and estimation of daily fluoride intake by tea drink in Korea. J Korean Acad Oral Health. 2010; 34:311–317.
2. Serafini M, Ghiselli A, Ferro-Luzzi A. In vivo antioxidant effect of green and black tea in man. Eur J Clin Nutr. 1996; 50:28–32.
3. MacKenzie T, Leary L, Brooks WB. The effect of an extract of green and black tea on glucose control in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus: double-blind randomized study. Metabolism. 2007; 56:1340–1344.
crossref
4. Shen CL, Chyu MC. Tea flavonoids for bone health: from animals to humans. J Invest Med. 2016; 64:1151–1157.
crossref
5. Sakanaka S, Shimura N, Aizawa M, Kim M, Yamamoto T. Preventive effect of green tea polyphenols against dental caries in conventional rats. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem. 1992; 56:592–594.
crossref
6. Ooshima T, Minami T, Aono W, Tamura Y, Hamada S. Reduction of dental plaque deposition in humans by oolong tea extract. Caries Res. 1994; 28:146–149.
crossref
7. Ministry of Food and Drug Safety. Food and Food Additives [Internet]. [cited 2018 Jun 14]. Available from:. http://www.foodsafe-tykorea.go.kr/foodcode/01_01.jsp.
8. Korea Consumer Agency. KCA report [Internet]. [cited 2018 Jun 14]. Available from:. http://www.kca.go.kr/brd/m_46/view.do?seq=456&itm_seq_1=3.
9. Hamouda IM. Effects of various beverages on hardness, roughness, and solubility of esthetic restorative materials. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2011; 23:315–322.
crossref
10. Lussi A, Jaeggi T, Schärer S. The influence of different factors on in vitro enamel erosion. Caries Res. 1993; 27:387–393.
crossref
11. Mahoney E, Beattie J, Swain M, Kilpatrick N. Preliminary in vitro assessment of erosive potential using the ultra-micro-indentation system. Caries Res. 2003; 37:218–224.
crossref
12. Youn HJ. Surface microhardness changes caused by commercial drinks on sound enamel of bovine teeth [master’s thesis]. Gwangju: Chonnam National University;2006. [Korean].
13. Lee HJ, Hong SJ, Choi CH. Erosive effect of hangover-curing beverages on enamel surface. J Korean Acad Oral Health. 2013; 37:119–125.
crossref
14. Eccles J. Tooth surface loss from abrasion, attrition and erosion. Dent Update. 1982; 9:373–381.
15. West N, Hughes J, 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
16. Johansson AK, Lingström P, Imfeld T, Birkhed D. Influence of drinking method on tooth-surface pH in relation to dental erosion. Eur J Oral Sci. 2004; 112:484–489.
crossref
17. Sanchez G, Fernandez De Preliasco M. Salivary pH changes during soft drinks consumption in children. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2003; 13:251–257.
18. Grobler SR, Jenkins GN, Kotze D. The effects of the composition and method of drinking of soft drinks on plaque pH. Br Dent J. 1985; 158:293–296.
crossref
19. Hannig C, Hamkens A, Becker K, Attin R, Attin T. Erosive effects of different acids on bovine enamel: release of calcium and phosphate in vitro. Arch Oral Biol. 2005; 50:541–552.
crossref
20. Spencer Jr AJ, Ellis LN. The effect of fluoride and grapefruit juice on the etching of teeth. J Nutr. 1950; 42:107–115.
21. 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. Eur J Oral Sci. 1988; 96:226–231.
crossref
22. Larsen M, Richards A. Fluoride is unable to reduce dental erosion from soft drinks. Caries Res. 2002; 36:75–80.
crossref
23. Linnett V, Seow WK. Dental erosion in children: a literature review. Pediatr Dent. 2001; 23:37–43.
24. Kim GS. An experimental study on the effects of soft drinks on plaque pH [master’s thesis]. Seoul: Seoul University;1993. [Korean].
25. Lee CY, Jung TS, Kim S. A study on the enamel erosion caused by orange juices. J Korean Acad Pediatr Dent. 2004; 31:617–623.
26. Meurman JH, Härkönen M, Näveri H, Koskinen J, Torkko H, Rytö-maa I, et al. Experimental sports drinks with minimal dental erosion effect. Eur J Oral Sci. 1990; 98:120–128.
crossref
27. Amaechi B, Higham S, Edgar W, Milosevic A. Thickness of acquired salivary pellicle as a determinant of the sites of dental erosion. J Dent Res. 1999; 78:1821–1828.
crossref

Table 1.
Materials used in the experiment
Group pH Fluoride (ppm) Titratable acidity (ml)
 Brand name
pH 5.5 pH 7.0
Mineral water 7.52±0.10 − − − Jeju samdasoo
(Negative control)
Distilled water mixed with citric acid 3.48±0.00 − 0.03±0.00 0.03±0.00 −
(Positive control)
Tea beverage (Experimental group) 3.48±0.02 0.50±0.06 0.28±0.00 0.39±0.00 Seopyeonje hongcha
Table 2.
The pH and fluoride concentration of mineral waters
Brand name Manufacturer pH Fluoride (ppm)
Sparkle Sparkle 6.94±0.19 0.35±0.00
Baeksansu Nongshim 6.98±0.05 0.69±0.08
ICIS pyeonghwagongwon Lotte 6.99±0.15 −
sanrimsu
Pulmuonesaemmul by nature Pulmuone 7.00±0.06 0.11±0.00
Malgeun saemmul Lotte 7.00±0.13 −
Gangwon pyeongchangsu Hai-Tai 7.14±0.04 0.14±0.02
Hwio sunsu Coca-Cola 7.27±0.02 0.25±0.02
Jeju samdasoo Kwangdong 7.52±0.10 −
ICIS 8.0 (by gyeongsangdo) Lotte 8.05±0.08 1.09±0.00
ICIS 8.0 (by chungcheongdo) Lotte 8.08±0.02 −
Baekdusan haneulsaem Lotte 8.09±0.07 0.43±0.04

Values are presented as mean±standard deviation.

Table 3.
The pH and fluoride concentration of tea beverages
Brand name Manufacturer pH Fluoride (ppm)
Seopyeonje hongcha Boseong 3.48±0.02 0.50±0.06
Hongsseonin Nonghyup 4.20±0.02 −
Ueongcha Kwangdong 4.54±0.05 −
Boricha Dongsuh 4.99±0.01 −
Yawang bisuricha Kwangdong 5.35±0.20 −
Condition heotgaesu CJ 5.41±0.15 −
Oksususuyeomcha soon Dongwon 5.47±0.07 −
Heotgaesu CJ 5.56±0.16 −
Heotgaecha Kwangdong 5.67±0.02 −
Haneulbori Woongjin 5.70±0.02 −
Dunggulrecha Dongsuh 5.78±0.02 −
Bosungnokcha Boseong 5.81±0.06 0.68±0.03
Hwanggeumbori Lotte 5.91±0.06 −
Achim heotgae Lotte 5.93±0.11 −
V line oksususuyeomcha Kwangdong 5.95±0.02 −
Oksususuyeomcha Dongsuh 6.01±0.01 −
Bosungnokcha soon Dongwon 6.03±0.03 0.74±0.09
Momi malgajineun sigan Namyang 6.03±0.03 −
17cha
Chogaeul ueongcha Lotte 6.08±0.02 −
Chahwanokcha Heysong 6.11±0.05 0.59±0.04
Taeyang-ui matecha Coca-Cola 6.28±0.02 −
Oksususuyeomcha Lotte 6.30±0.04 −
Seopyeonje oksususu- Boseong 6.74±0.04 −
yeomcha

Values are presented as mean±standard deviation.

Table 4.
The average pH of experiment beverages
Beverage N pH (Min-Max)*
Mineral waters 11 7.37±0.08 (6.94-8.09)
Tea beverages 23 5.62±0.05 (3.48-6.74)

Values are presented as mean±standard deviation. *P<0.05, by Mann-Whitney U test.

Table 5.
Difference in surface microhardness after treatment for 10 minutes Unit: VHN
Group N Time
 Difference†
Before After
Mineral water 10 292.73±13.68 292.63±13.18 ―0.96±18.07a
Distilled water mixed with citric acid* 10 294.12±15.31 273.07±13.97 ―21.05±15.65b
Tea beverage* 10 293.26±14.38 254.98±13.44 ―38.28±15.03b

Values are presented as mean±standard deviation. *P<0.05, by Paired t-test.

† P<0.05, by one-way ANOVA test.

a,b The same letter indicates no significant difference by Tukey test at a=0.05.

TOOLS
Similar articles