Caries Research
Basic Science
Evaluation of the Cariogenic Potential of the Intense Natural Sweeteners Stevioside and Rebaudioside ADas S.a · Das A.K.b · Murphy R.A.b · Punwani I.C.a · Nasution M.P.c · Kinghorn A.D.caDepartment of Pediatric Dentistry, bDepartment of Oral Medicine and Diagnostic Sciences, College of Dentistry, cDepartment of Medicinal Chemistry and Pharmacognosy, College of Pharmacy, University of Illinois at Chicago, 111., USA
|
|
Log in to MyKarger to check if you already have access to this content.
KAB
Buy a Karger Article Bundle (KAB) and profit from a discount!
If you would like to redeem your KAB credit, please log in.
Save over 20% compared to the individual article price.
Article / Publication Details
Received: October 07, 1991
Accepted: March 22, 1992
Published online: November 19, 2009
Issue release date: 1992
Number of Print Pages: 4
Number of Figures: 0
Number of Tables: 0
ISSN: 0008-6568 (Print)
eISSN: 1421-976X (Online)
For additional information: https://www.karger.com/CRE
Abstract
Stevioside and rebaudioside A, two intense natural sweeteners, that are constituents of the South American plant Stevia rebaudiana, were tested for cariogenicity in albino Sprague-Dawley rats. Sixty rat pups colonized with Streptococcus sobrinus were divided into four groups and fed stevioside, rebaudioside A or sucrose added to basal diet 2000 as follows: group 1,30% sucrose; group 2, 0.5% stevioside; group 3, 0.5% rebaudioside A, and group 4, no addition. All four groups were sacrificed after 5 weeks. S. sobrinus counts were made and caries was evaluated according to Keyes’ technique. There were no differences in food and water intake and weight gains between the four groups. There were significant differences in sulcal caries scores (p < 0.02) and S. sobrinus counts (p < 0.05) between group 1 and the other three groups. There were no significant differences between the stevioside, rebaudioside A and no-addition groups. It was concluded that neither stevioside nor rebaudioside A is cariogenic uner the conditions of this study.
© 1992 S. Karger AG, Basel
Related Articles:
Article / Publication Details
Received: October 07, 1991
Accepted: March 22, 1992
Published online: November 19, 2009
Issue release date: 1992
Number of Print Pages: 4
Number of Figures: 0
Number of Tables: 0
ISSN: 0008-6568 (Print)
eISSN: 1421-976X (Online)
For additional information: https://www.karger.com/CRE
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.

Get Permission