Objective: To evaluate whether the type of cola drink (regular or diet) could influence the wear of enamel subjected to erosion followed by brushing abrasion, Method and !Materials: Ten volunteers wore intraoral devices that each had eight bovine enamel blocks divided into four groups; ER, erosion with regular cola; EAR, erosion with regular cola plus abrasion; EL, erosion with light cola; and EAL, erosion with light cola plus abrasion, Each day for 1 week, half of each device was immersed in regular cola for 5 minutes, Then, two blocks were brushed using a fluoridated toothpaste and electric toothbrush for 30 seconds four times daily, Immediately after, the other half of the device was subjected to the same procedure using a light cola, The pH, calcium, phosphorus, and fluoride concentrations of the colas were analyzed using standard procedures, Enamel alterations were measured by profilometry. Data were tested using two-way ANOVA and Bonferroni test (P < .05), Results: Regarding chemical characteristics, light cola presented pH 3.0, 13.7 mg Ca/L, 15.5 mg P/L, and 0.31 mg F/L, while regular cola had pH 2.6, 32.1 mg Ca/L, 1:8.1 mg P/L, and 0.26 mg F/L, The light cola promoted less enamel loss (EL, 0.36 pm; EAL, 0.39 pm) than its regular counterpart (ER, 0.72 pm; EAR, 0.95 pm) for both conditions, There was not a significant difference (P > .05) between erosion and erosion plus abrasion for light cola, However, for regular cola, erosion plus abrasion resulted in higher enamel loss than erosion alone,.nclusion: The data suggest that light cola promoted less enamel wear even when erosion was followed by brushing abrasion, (Quintessence Int 2011;42:xxx-xx)()
