Back

Erosive potential of energy drink modified by calcium formulations on dental enamel: an in vitro study

Jacome, E. V. M.; Santos, M. M. d.; Moura, D. M. D.; Santos, P. B.; Inacio, M. d. S. d. C.; Torres, A. C. S. P.

2025-06-20 dentistry and oral medicine
10.1101/2025.06.18.25329903 medRxiv
Show abstract

ObjectivesTo evaluate the erosive potential of an energy drink modified with different calcium formulations and concentrations on dental enamel. MethodsThis in vitro study used sixty dental enamel specimens, divided into 12 groups: traditional Red Bull(R) energy drink modified with three concentrations each of calcium/phosphorus/potassium complex (0.71, 1.43, and 2.15g), dicalcium malate (0.83, 1.66, and 2.50g), and calcium citrate malate (1.26, 2.53, and 3.80g); unmodified traditional Red Bull(R) energy drink; deionized water; and commercially available calcium-supplemented Life Mix Baixa Caloria(R) orange juice. The pH of all drinks was measured using a pHmeter. Specimens were exposed to the drinks for two minutes. Surface roughness and microhardness were assessed before and after exposure using a rugosimeter and a Vickers microhardness tester, respectively. ResultsThe addition of calcium/phosphorus/potassium complex increased the energy drinks pH proportionally to the concentration added. Specimens exposed to modified drinks showed reduced roughness (p < 0.004) compared to control drinks. Drinks modified with 2.50g of dicalcium malate and 2.15g of the calcium/phosphorus/potassium complex significantly preserved enamel microhardness (p < 0.004) compared to the unmodified energy drink. Across all modifications, enamel surface microhardness loss was lower than in control groups, except for deionized water. ConclusionThe addition of calcium formulations to the energy drink effectively reduced its erosive potential at all concentrations, with the calcium/phosphorus/potassium complex demonstrating the greatest protective effect.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.