Pop-Cola Acids and Tooth Erosion: An<i>In Vitro</i>,<i>In Vivo</i>, Electron-Microscopic, and Clinical Report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction. Manufactured Colas are consumed universally as soft drinks. Evidence about the acid contents of Cola-beverages and its effects on teeth is rare. Aim. To assess (i) cola acidity and buffering capacity in vitro, (ii) tooth erosion after swishing with colas in vivo (iii) scanning electron microscopic effects on teeth of colas, and tooth-brush abrasion, and (iv) report a clinical case of erosion from cola consumption. Materials and Methods. (i) We measured six commercially available pop "Cola beverages", pH, and buffering capacities using a pH-Mettler Automatic Titrator, with weak solution of Sodium Hydroxide (ii) two cohorts, one with teeth, the second without teeth rinsed with aliquots of Cola for 60 seconds. Swished cola samples tested for calcium and phosphorus contents using standardized chemical analytical methods (iii) enamel, dentine, and the enamel-cemental junction from unerupted extracted wisdom teeth were examined with a scanning electron microscope after exposure to colas, and tested for tooth-brush abrasion; (iv) a clinical case of pop cola erosion presentation, are all described. Results. Comparisons among pop colas tested in vitro reveal high acidity with very low pH. Buffering capacities in millilitres of 0.5 M NaOH needed to increase one pH unit, to pH 5.5 and pH 7 are reported. Rinsing in vivo with pop cola causes leeching of calcium from teeth; SEM shows dental erosion, and pop-cola consumption induces advanced dental erosion and facilitates abrasion. Conclusions. (i) Pop-Cola acid activity is below the critical pH 5.5 for tooth dissolution, with high buffering capacities countering neutralization effects of saliva; (ii) calcium is leeched out of teeth after rinsing with pop colas; (iii) SEM evidence explains why chronic exposure to acid pop colas causes dental frangibles; (iv) a clinical case of pop-cola erosion confirms this.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".