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. 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). 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). 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.

Objective: The purpose of this scoping review was to identify gaps in the literature and summarize findings from studies examining the use of silicon-, silica-, and silicate-based toothpastes for the remineralization and repair of mineralized tooth tissues. Methods: A 10-year literature search was conducted using PubMed and Scopus, adhering to PRISMA 2020 guidelines. A total of 331 studies were initially identified, with 56 full-text review articles. After selecting the manuscripts, 27 studies were qualitatively analyzed by four reviewers, focusing on the results of both in vivo and in vitro methods. Results: The findings suggest that toothpastes containing silicon, silica, and silicate demonstrate promising results for remineralization and enamel repair, with evidence of mineral layer formation and/or deep enamel surface remineralization under various conditions. Additionally, the use of these toothpastes can lead to the obliteration of dentinal tubules within a few days. The results collectively support the efficacy of these toothpastes in enamel repair. Most of the clinical studies focused on dentine hypersensitivity, followed by white spot lesions. Conclusions: Silicon-, silica-, and silicate-based toothpastes (bioactive Si-toothpastes) can be considered effective based mostly on laboratory studies. There remains a need for more in vivo research studies on enamel and dentin mineral repair. Existing studies provide strong evidence that these technologies can reduce dentin hypersensitivity and promote enamel–dentin repair.

This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of bioactive toothpastes in remineralizing eroded enamel surfaces in vitro. Bovine enamel blocks (n = 48) were obtained and classified into untreated, demineralized, and treated areas. Specimens were randomly classified into six groups (n = 8 each): fluoride-free toothpaste (NCT), Colgate Total 12 (PCT), Sensodyne Repair and Protect (SRP), Sensodyne Pronamel (SPE), Regenerador + Sensitive (RGS), and RGS/calcium booster (RCB). The specimens were subjected to erosive pH cycling for 5 days for 4 times/day (90 s) and treated with toothpaste slurries (1:3) for 1 min. The Vickers hardness (50 g/10 s) and percentage surface hardness recovery (%SMHR) were calculated. Furthermore, the topography and roughness (Ra) of the enamel surface were evaluated using a 3D non-contact optical profilometer, along with the tooth surface loss (TSL). Data were statistically analyzed using analysis of variance or Tukey’s test (significance: 5%). The %SMHR of the SRP and NCT groups were significantly lower than those of the other groups (p < 0.05). Ra was higher when the eroded area was treated with SRP and SPE (p < 0.05). Treatment with RGS, PCT, and SPE favored the recovery of the enamel surface compared with the NCT group (p < 0.05). The best TSL results were obtained with treatment with RGS, followed by PCT and SPE (p < 0.05). The RCB group showed statistically equivalent results for surface hardness recovery and TSL (p > 0.05). Conclusively, PCT and RGS toothpastes were more effective in remineralizing the enamel surface.

Objective: To evaluate the erosive potential of different alcoholic beverages according to pH, titratable acidity and buffering capacity. Material and Methods: Thirteen industrialized alcoholic beverages of different brands were selected and divided into five groups according to their type and composition. The pH measurement and titratable acidity for pH 5.5 and 7.0 were performed in triplicate in 50 mL of each beverage. The buffering capacity was calculated based on pH and titratable acidity for pH 7.0. ANOVA, Tukey, and Pearson correlation, with p<0.05, were used for data analysis. Results: Data showed normal distribution by Shapiro-Wilk test. The pH of alcoholic beverages ranged from 2.49 (Miks Ice Tea-Green Fruits) to 7.64 (Smirnoff). The highest values of acid titration (4.68) and buffer capacity (19.97) were observed in Smirnoff Ice. The following correlations (p<0.01) were noted between: pH and titratable acidity; buffering capacity and pH; buffering capacity and titratable acidity. Conclusion: Some beers and alcopops presented erosive potential due to their lower pH associated with high acid titration values. The whisky and sugarcane liquor examined were not potentially erosive.

Objective: To evaluate the remineralizing potential of a hydrocolloid-based, controlled fluoride-releasing system added to dentifrice formulas. Material and Methods: Sixty-five human enamel blocks were prepared and the surface microhardness (SH0) values were determined. The artificial caries lesions were induced and the demineralization surface microhardness (SH1) was evaluated. The blocks were randomly allocated into five groups (n = 13): (1) 100-TGF (100% NaF with Tara gum added); (2) 50-TGF (50% free NaF + 50% NaF with Tara gum added); (3) 100% TG (100% Tara gum without fluoride); (4) 100% NaF (positive control); and (5) placebo (without Tara gum and NaF). The blocks were submitted to 7 days pH cycling and treated with dentifrice slurries twice a day. Finally, surface hardness (SH2) was assessed and the percentage of surface hardness recovery (%SMHR) was calculated. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Bonferroni test was used for statistical analysis. Results: A positive %SMHR was found in the 100% NaF (5.07) and 50-TGF (0.64) groups, while the 100-TGF (-1.38), 100% TG (-3.88) and placebo (-0.52) did not undergo remineralization. Statistically significant differences were observed between 100% NaF and all the groups except for 50-TGF (p<0.05). Conclusion: The presence of hydrocolloid (Tara gum) promoted minimal remineralization when associated with NaF. In the applied model, Tara gum may have compromised remineralization, preventing free fluoride from acting effectively in the carious lesion.

This in vitro study evaluated the protective effect of an Si-containing toothpaste associated with different fluoride concentrations by reducing the depth of the demineralized lesions in dentin after cariogenic pH cycling. Methods: Sixty bovine dentin blocks (4 × 4 × 2 mm) were randomly assigned into five groups (n = twelve/group): RGS₁ (Si toothpaste with 1450 ppm F), RGS₂ (Si toothpaste with 1100 ppm F), RGS₃ (fluoride-free Si toothpaste), negative control (NC) (fluoride-free toothpaste), and positive control (PC) (1450 ppm F toothpaste). The specimens underwent a three-day pH cycling model simulating the oral environment with twice-daily brushing. The mineral loss (ΔF) and lesion depth (ΔF_max) were assessed using quantitative light-induced fluorescence (QLF), and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) provided a morphological analysis. Elemental analyses were performed with an energy-dispersive X-ray spectrometer (EDS). ANOVA and Tukey’s test were used for the data analysis (α = 5%). Results: EDS confirmed the Si in the toothpaste formulations. The groups treated with fluoride silicon toothpastes (RGS₁, RGS₂) had significantly reduced mineral loss and lesion depth compared to the PC group. The NC group exhibited the greatest mineral loss and lesion depth. SEM images revealed occluded superficial dentin tubules and a protective mineral layer in the groups treated with Si toothpaste, whereas no deposition (NC group) or limited mineral deposition (PC group) was observed in the control groups. Conclusions: The findings suggest that the Si toothpastes favored protection against dentin demineralization, even at a lower concentration or free of fluoride, with dentin tubule occlusion, thus representing a promising oral care product over traditional fluoride toothpastes.