An in vitro investigation of the erosive potential of smoothies

British Dental Journal

Volumn 214, Issue 4, 2013, Pages

  Blacker, S M ^a   Chadwick, R G ^a  

^a DUNDEE DENTAL HOSPITAL AND SCHOOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; BEVERAGE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; ENAMEL; FRUIT; HUMAN; IN VITRO STUDY; PH; PHYSIOLOGY; SURFACE PROPERTY; TOOTH DISEASE;

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; BEVERAGES; DENTAL ENAMEL SOLUBILITY; FRUIT; HUMANS; HYDROGEN-ION CONCENTRATION; SURFACE PROPERTIES; TOOTH EROSION;

EID: 84875601785     PISSN: 00070610     EISSN: 17417503     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2013.164     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Mercier P, Precious D. Risks and benefits of removal of impacted third molars. A critical review of the literature. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1992; 21: 17-27
2. Edwards D J, Brickley M R, Horton J, Edwards M J, Shepherd J P. Choice of anaesthetic and healthcare facility for third molar surgery. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1998; 36: 333-340
3. Department of Health. A conscious decision: A review of the use of general anaesthesia and conscious sedation in primary dental care. London: DH, 2000
4. Flynn P J, Strunin L. General anaesthesia for dentistry. Anaesth Int Care Med 2005; 6: 263-265
5. MacGregor A. The impacted lower wisdom tooth. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1985
6. Seheult R O, Cotter S L, Mashni M. General anesthesia: The final option. J Calif Dent Assoc 1993; 21: 26-29
7. General Dental Council. Maintaining standards: Guidance to dentists on professional and personal conduct. London: GDC, 1997. Online article available at http:// gdc-arf.com/Newsandpublications/Publications/ Publications/ MaintainingStandards%5B1%5D.pdf (accessed January 2013).
8. Royal College of Anaesthetists. Standards and guidelines for general anaesthesia for dentistry. London: The Royal College of Anaesthetists, 1999
9. Lopes V, Mumenya R, Feinmann C, Harris M. Third molar surgery: An audit of the indications for surgery, post-operative complaints and patient satisfaction. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1995; 33: 33-35
10. Dunne C M, Goodall C A, Leitch J A, Russell D I. Removal of third molars in Scottish oral and maxillofacial surgery units: A review of practice in 1995 and 2002. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2006; 44: 313-316
11. Chandler L P, Laskin D M. Accuracy of radiographs in classification of impacted third molar teeth. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1988; 46: 656-660
12. Scottish Government. Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation. Edinburgh, Scottish Government, 2009 (updated March 2011). Online index available at http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/SIMD/ (accessed January 2013).
13. Kim D S, Lopes J, Higgins A, Lopes V. Influence of NICE guidelines on removal of third molars in a region of the UK. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2006; 44: 504-506
14. Boyle C A. Sedation or general anaesthesia for treating anxious children. Evid Based Dent 2009; 10: 69
15. Jameson K, Averley P A, Shackley P, Steele J. A comparison of the cost per child treated at a primary care-based sedation referral service, compared to a general anaesthetic in hospital. Br Dent J 2007; 203: E13
16. Brann C R, Brickley M R, Shepherd J P. Factors influencing nerve damage during lower third molar surgery. Br Dent J 1999; 186: 514-516
17. Edwards D J, Horton J, Shepherd J P, Brickley M R. Impact of third molar removal on demands for postoperative care and job disruption: Does anaesthetic choice make a difference? Ann R Coll Surg Engl 1999; 81: 119-123
18. Tyrer G L. Referrals for dental general anaesthetics how many really need GA? Br Dent J 1999; 187: 440-443