Advertisement

European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry

, Volume 17, Issue 3, pp 145–156 | Cite as

The cariogenicity of commercial infant formulas: a systematic review

  • S. F. Tan
  • H. J. Tong
  • X. Y. Lin
  • B. Mok
  • C. H. HongEmail author
Systematic Review

Abstract

Aim

To systematically evaluate the cariogenic potential of various commercially available infant formulas.

Materials and methods

A literature search was conducted using Pubmed and Scopus databases for articles published between 1966 and November 2014. Reference lists of all eligible studies were searched. Only human studies were included. Data extraction and risk of bias assessments were performed.

Results

Seven of the 83 articles identified were included in this review, of which six studies employed plaque harvesting methods, while one study utilised an intra-oral cariogenicity/in situ model. Three studies compared milk-based formulas (MBFs) and soy-based formulas (SBFs), two compared protein hydrolysate formulas (PHFs) with MBFs and SBFs, four compared formulas with various types of sugar, and two studies compared formulas with varying casein content. Based on a single study, SBFs were significantly more cariogenic than MBFs. Formulas containing only non-milk extrinsic sugars (NMES) and those containing lactose + NMES were found to be significantly more cariogenic than formulas containing only lactose. No significant correlation was found between cariogenicity and casein content in infant formula. The results of studies comparing PHFs with MBFs and SBFs were contradictory. Risk of bias assessment revealed that five studies were at moderate risk of bias, and two were assessed to be at high risk of bias.

Conclusion

The result for cariogenicity of various types of infant formulas remains inconclusive, thus no concrete recommendations can be made. Further well-designed studies are needed to clarify the effect of casein content on cariogenicity.

Keywords

Infant formula Dental caries 

References

  1. Al-Ahmari Z, Adenubi JO. Evaluation of acidogenic potential of infant milk formula. Saud Dent J. 2003;15:88–95.Google Scholar
  2. American Academy of Pediatrics. Committee on nutrition: hypoallergenic infant formulas. Pediatrics. 2000;106:346–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. American Dental Association Health Foundation Research Institute. Scientific consensus conference on methods for assessment of the cariogenic potential of food. J Am Dent Assoc. 1986;535.Google Scholar
  4. Bhatia J, Greer F, American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Nutrition. Use of soy protein-based formulas in infant feeding. Pediatrics. 2008;121:1062–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bowen WH, Pearson SK, Rosalen PL, et al. Assessing the cariogenic potential of some infant formulas, milk and sugar solutions. J Am Dent Assoc. 1997;128:865–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown CR, Dodds L, Legge A, et al. Factors influencing the reasons why mothers stop breastfeeding. Can J Publ Health. 2014;105:e179–85.Google Scholar
  7. Chaudhary SD, Chaudhary M, Singh A, Kunte S. An assessment of the cariogenicity of commonly used infant milk formulae using microbiological and biochemical methods. Int J Dent. 2011;2011:320798.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Curzon ME, Hefferren JJ. Modern methods for assessing the cariogenic and erosive potential of foods. Br Dent J. 2001;191:41–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Danchaivijitr A, Nakornchai S, Thaweeboon B, et al. The effect of different milk formulas on dental plaque pH. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2006;16:192–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. De Mazer Papa AM, Tabchoury CP, Del Bel Cury AA, et al. Effect of milk and soy-based infant formulas on in situ demineralization of human primary enamel. Pediatr Dent. 2010;32:35–40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Denne SC. Neonatal nutrition. Pediatr Clin N Am. 2015;62:427–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Do LG, Levy SM, Spencer AJ. Association between infant formula feeding and dental fluorosis and caries in Australian children. J Publ Health Dent. 2012;72:112–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Erickson PR, Mcclintock KL, Green N, Lafleur J. Estimation of the caries-related risk associated with infant formulas. Pediatr Dent. 1998;20:395–403.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Moynihan PJ, Wright WG, Walton AG. A comparison of the relative acidogenic potential of infant milk and soya infant formula: a plaque pH study. Int J Paediatr Dent. 1996;6:177–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Munshi AK, Kavitha H, Shanthi KP. Acidogenic potential of the infant formulas marketed in India. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2001;19:1–9.Google Scholar
  16. Ozer S, Tunc ES. The effect of common infant foods on plaque pH. Oral Health Prev Dent. 2012;10:123–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Peres RC, Coppi LC, Franco EM, et al. Cariogenicity of different types of milk: an experimental study using animal model. Braz Dent J. 2002;13:27–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Peres RC, Coppi LC, Volpato MC, et al. Cariogenic potential of cows’, human and infant formula milks and effect of fluoride supplementation. Br J Nutr. 2009;101:376–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Raju AS, Hirehal M, Manjunath PG, et al. The acidogenic potential of different milk formulas on dental plaque pH. Oral Health Prev Dent. 2012;10:225–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Reynolds EC, Del Rio A. Effect of casein and whey-protein solutions on caries experience and feeding patterns of the rat. Arch Oral Biol. 1984;29:927–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Sheikh C, Erickson PR. Evaluation of plaque pH changes following oral rinse with eight infant formulas. Pediatr Dent. 1996;18:200–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Somerfield M, Padberg J, Pfister D, et al. ASCO clinical practice guidelines: process, progress, pitfalls, and prospects. Class Pap curr comments. 2000, pp 881–886.Google Scholar
  23. Stookey GK. Reactor paper concerning patient selection and appliance design in intra-oral models. J Dent Res. 1992;71:911–2.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Sung YH, Kim HY, Son HH, Chang J. How to design in situ studies: an evaluation of experimental protocols. Restor Dent Endod. 2014;39:164–71.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. Tahmassebi JF, Duggal MS. Comparison of the plaque pH response to an acidogenic challenge in children and adults. Caries Res. 1996;30:342–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. ten Cate JM. Models and role models. Caries Res. 2015;49(Suppl 1):3–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Tinanoff N, O'Sullivan DM. Early childhood caries: overview and recent findings. Pediatr Dent. 1997;19(1):12–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. F. Tan
    • 1
  • H. J. Tong
    • 2
  • X. Y. Lin
    • 1
  • B. Mok
    • 2
  • C. H. Hong
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Faculty of DentistryNational University of SingaporeSingaporeSingapore
  2. 2.Discipline of Orthodontics and Paediatric Dentistry, Faculty of DentistryNational University of SingaporeSingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations