Comparative Evaluation of Beverage-Induced Surface Alterations on Dental Enamel: An In Vitro Biomaterial Study

Despite advances in preventive dental care, tooth enamel erosion remains a relevant concern, and very few comparisons of surface topography have been carried out under controlled conditions in the laboratory. This study primarily aimed to conduct a qualitative morphological evaluation, supported by semi-quantitative image analysis, of the effects of commonly consumed beverages on human enamel morphology and colour, and to explore their relationship with beverage acidity in an in vitro model.

Forty-two human teeth were allocated at random into seven different groups, each containing six molars. These groups were Coca-Cola, orange juice, lemon juice, coffee, chlorhexidine, regular mouthwash without chlorhexidine, and one control group. Following a 24 h exposure to a simulated saliva environment at 37 °C, the test samples were then subjected to a five-day erosion cycle. SEM analysis was used to examine the enamel alterations after evaluating the morphology of the enamel surface and by digital image analysis.

Scanning electron microscopy, SEM, showed how erosion of the teeth's surface increased with the acidity of the drink. The extensive exposure of the crystal prisms, along with the severe loss of intercrystalline material and honeycomb weathering patterns, was all brought about by Coca-Cola and lemon juice. The moderate erosion brought on by orange juice in tests resulted in partially exposed prisms. Both the mouthwashes and the coffee exhibited similar impacts on the tooth enamel in a microscopic view. Minimal enamel prism rods were exposed due to either the coffee or the mouthwash. The surface characteristics were found through a digital image analysis, which indicated alterations in surface texture.

Under these immersion conditions, highly acidic beverages produced the most pronounced enamel surface changes, whereas coffee induced mainly staining and neutral mouthwashes caused minimal modification. These results reflect qualitative morphological trends and should not be interpreted as clinical outcomes.