The effects of fruit smoothies on enamel erosion

Objectives: This prospective, randomised in vitro study was to investigate the pH and titratable acidity of fruit smoothie drinks and to assess the effect of these drinks on enamel erosion. Method: Fifty enamel slabs were divided into five groups which were allocated to the sample solutions groups: Innocent® smoothie strawberries and bananas (SB), Innocent® smoothie mangoes and passion fruit (MP) and Diet Coke. Distilled deionised water (DD) was used as negative control and citric acid 0.3 % as positive control. All the slabs were subjected to a 21-day pH cycling regime involving 2 min of immersions, five times a day with appropriate remineralization periods in between. Measurement of surface loss was assessed using profilometry. Independent sample t tests were used to compare mean. Results: The titratable acidity for both test smoothies were 3.5-4 times more than that needed to neutralise Diet Coke and citric acid 0.3 %. The pH of SB, MP smoothie and Diet Coke was found to be 3.73, 3.59 and 2.95, respectively. MP smoothie caused the greatest amount of surface loss followed by Diet Coke. Both smoothies were found to cause significant surface loss. MP smoothie resulted in significantly higher surface loss compared with MB smoothie and citric acid 3 %. Conclusion: The smoothies tested were acidic and had high titratable acidity. They produced a significant erosion of enamel in vitro. The results of this study suggest that there should be increased awareness of the erosive effects of smoothies especially as their consumption seems to be on the increase

Anaesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine and 2% lidocaine for extraction and pulpotomy of mandibular primary molars: an equivalence parallel prospective randomized controlled trial

Aim: To compare the anaesthetic efficacy for pain and behaviour during treatment with mandibular infiltration using 4% articaine (BI) with inferior dental nerve clock (IDNB) using 2% lidocaine for extraction or pulp therapy in mandibular primary molars. Design: This was equivalence parallel prospective RCT. A total of 98 children aged 5–9 years old were randomly assigned into two groups: BI supplemented by buccal intrapapillary infiltration with 4% articaine; IDNB with 2% lidocaine supplemented with long buccal infiltration. Behaviour during the injection and treatment procedures was assessed using Wong‐Baker Facial Rating Scale (W‐BFRS), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), and Frankl Behaviour Rating Scale (FBRS). Results: During the injection phase, the absolute differences in success rates between the two techniques were 0.06 (95% CI: −0.11 to 0.23) for VAS and −0.08 (95% CI: −0.19 to 0.03) for the behaviour of the child (FBRS). FBRS results showed the equivalence of the two, whereas the VAS results showed nonequivalence with the 95% confidence intervals slightly exceeding the equivalence margin (±0.20). W‐BFRS success rates were 63.3% for both. During the treatment, VAS results showed similar success rates, demonstrating equivalence between the two as did the results for FBRS. Conclusion: The results suggested equivalence in success rates for both anaesthetic techniques during treatment